2012 (11) TMI 117 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT grants refund for service tax paid, overturns rejection based on document type.

MISSIONPHARMA LOGISTICES (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, allowed the appeal and granted a refund of Rs. 50,127 to the appellant for service tax paid from March 2009 to ... Refund claim - duty paying document - objection of the Revenue is that the service tax was paid on the basis of debit notes issued and not on the basis of invoice, bill or challans – Held that:- No dispute that service has been provided, received by the appellant, utilized by the appellant and the other conditions which are required to be fulfilled as per Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. have been fulfilled - Since all the conditions of the notification have been fulfilled and there is no dispute about the same - appellant is eligible for the refund claimed by them - appeal is allowed Issues: Refund claim rejection based on document type specified under Rule 4(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, addressed a refund claim of Rs. 50,127 made by the appellant for service tax paid from March 2009 to June 2009. The claim was rejected due to the documents not meeting the specifications under Rule 4(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The lower authorities insisted on invoices, bills, or challans as valid documents for service tax, while the appellant paid tax based on debit notes issued by the service provider.The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that all conditions under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. for the refund were met, without a specific requirement in the notification for payment based on Rule 4(a) documents. The appellant received services, paid for them, and the service providers confirmed paying the service tax claimed for refund. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision emphasizing that if a debit note contains necessary invoice details, denial of credit solely based on the document's name is unjustifiable. The absence of stringent conditions in the notification akin to Cenvat credit rules implies such conditions cannot be imposed on a refund claimant not availing Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority did not assess whether the debit note contained required information or not, solely focusing on it not being a specified document under Rule 4(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. After considering both sides' arguments, the Tribunal found no dispute regarding service receipt, utilization, and fulfillment of conditions under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. The Revenue's objection pertained to service tax payment via debit notes instead of invoices, bills, or challans. Relying on the Pharma Lab Process Equipments Pvt. Limited case and observing that the debit note contained necessary information, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund as all notification conditions were met, and the issue was addressed by the Tribunal decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the refund to the appellant.