2013 (5) TMI 537 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant wins appeal for Service Tax refund on GTA services due to sufficient evidence.

The appellant successfully challenged the rejection of their refund claim for Service Tax paid on GTA services from April to September 2009. The court ... Refund claim - GTA services – Rejection of refund claim as appellant has not produced the documentary evidences in respect of taxable services being provided to SEZ and consumed partially or wholly outside the SEZ. Held that:- Perusing of invoices raised by BSNL and other various telephone service providers and also the bills of transport companies it indicate the consignors or beneficiary of the services as the appellant in a particular clause which is in SEZ. It is also seen from the records that the said transport company is for transportation of the goods into the SEZ unit and also taking up the goods from the SEZ unit. Appellant has produced enough evidence before the lower authorities to justify his refund claim. Thus, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. Issues involved: Refund of Service Tax paid on GTA services during a specific period.Analysis:The appeal in question challenges Order-in-Appeal No. Commr.(A)/ 297/ VDR-II/2011, which dealt with the refund of Service Tax paid by the appellant on GTA services from April to September 2009. The primary issue revolves around the rejection of the refund claim by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority due to the alleged absence of documentary evidence proving the taxable services provided to SEZ and consumed either partially or wholly outside the SEZ.Upon review, it was observed that the appellant had indeed submitted the refund application with the necessary documents and copies of bills for the relevant quarter. These documents included invoices from BSNL and other telephone service providers, as well as bills from transport companies. These documents clearly indicated the appellant as the consignor or beneficiary of services within the SEZ. Notably, the transport companies were involved in transporting goods to and from the SEZ unit. The presiding judge found this evidence to be sufficient to support the refund claim.Consequently, the decision of both lower authorities to reject the refund claim on the basis of missing documents was deemed erroneous. The judge concluded that the appellant had adequately substantiated their claim with the provided documentary evidence. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. However, since the precise amount of refund needed to be determined by the lower authorities, the matter was remanded solely for the purpose of quantifying and granting the appropriate refund amount.In summary, the judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence in supporting refund claims and highlighting the necessity for lower authorities to accurately quantify the refund amount based on the evidence presented.