Appeal allowed for service tax refund on CHA services for exports, except for invoices lacking registration numbers.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants were entitled to a refund claim for service tax paid on CHA services for exports, except for invoices lacking registration numbers. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying the refund, as the requirement for challans was not mandated by the relevant notification. The case was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claims for service tax paid for CHA services in exports.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the rejection of their refund claims for service tax paid on CHA services for exports. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied a portion of the refund amount, citing lack of evidence of service tax payment and missing registration numbers on invoices.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the denial based on missing registration numbers was acceptable due to the small amount involved. However, he contested the requirement of producing challans for service tax payment by the CHA, stating it was not mandated by Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6-10-07, which only required proof of actual service tax payment by the exporter.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that without copies of challans showing service tax payment by the CHA, the department could not verify the payment.

4. The Tribunal found the department's insistence on producing challans unreasonable and not in line with the notification's requirements. It noted that the rejection was not due to non-payment of service tax but the absence of challans. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also erred in denying the refund for CHA services, contrary to Notification No. 17/08-S.T., which allowed refunds for such services related to export goods.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for the refund claim for all invoices except those lacking the CHA's registration numbers. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on the Tribunal's observations. The judgment was pronounced on 8-9-2010.

---