Service Tax Refund Claim can't be rejected when assessee compiled with requirements under Refund Notification: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of Chennai Bench has held that a service tax refund claim can't be rejected when assessee compiled with requirements under refund notification.

M/s. Core Minerals,  the assessee was providing service of Transport of Goods by Road, Mining Services, Renting of Immovable Properties and Supply of Tangible Goods Services. The appellant had filed a refund claim for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2009 under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009, which specifically provided for exemption of specified taxable services used for the export of goods by an exporter. 

The authority rejected the refund claim because the amount of two shipping bills were ineligible on account of the same being hit by the period of limitation, the amount claimed towards GTA services was ineligible as the invoices pertaining thereto did not contain the requisite information as per Notification No. 17/2009  and amount about terminal charges and security charges were ineligible for refund as the same was not specified in the list of qualified input services under Notification No. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007.

The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned a partial refund while rejecting an amount of Rs.40,44,376/- and against the said rejection, the appellant preferred the first appeal. The First Appellate Authority, after hearing, granted a partial refund.

The First Appellate Authority has held that wherever the appellant had produced original invoices about GTA and Port Services which were duly verified by the Department, the appellant would be eligible for refund meaning thereby that wherever photocopy of invoices was produced, no refund was to be granted.

The explanation under the proviso in the said Notification at (g) only requires the production of documents and the appellant had indeed produced the documents (though a few photocopies of some invoices).

A two-member Coram comprising of Mr P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) observed that the appellant has complied with the requirement of the Notification under which it had claimed the refund. Further held that the lower authorities cannot reject the grant of refund on the ground of non-production of original documents/export invoices.

While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate appeared for the Appellant and Smt. Sridevi Taritla, Additional Commissioner for the Respondent.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates