2015 (9) TMI 475 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal orders remand for fair hearing, stresses link between GTA services and export for tax refund.

M/s. Tulip Mines Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, C & ST, BBSR-II

M/s. Tulip Mines Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, C & ST, BBSR-II - TMI Issues:Refund claim of Service Tax on GTA services for exported goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended.Analysis:The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the refund claim of Service Tax on GTA services for exported goods. The appellant, an exporter of iron ore fines, had claimed a refund of &8377; 6,19,395, out of which &8377; 1,89,961 was allowed, but &8377; 4,18,421 related to GTA services was rejected. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) modified the Order, allowing refund on port services but rejecting the refund claims on GTA services due to missing export invoice numbers in the lorry receipt and shipping bills as required by the Notification. The appellant argued that despite the absence of export invoice numbers in the lorry receipt, all export details were available and could be correlated. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their claim. The Department contended that compliance with the Notification conditions is mandatory, referring to Supreme Court judgments.The Tribunal examined the case records and noted that the appellant used GTA services for exporting goods, a scenario where service tax refund is permissible. The dispute revolved around missing invoice numbers in the lorry receipts and shipping bills. The appellant acknowledged the absence of invoice details in the lorry receipts but claimed the ability to establish the link between the receipts and export invoices. The Tribunal cited a previous case where providing necessary details separately was deemed acceptable. Following a similar approach, the Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for verification of the appellant's claim regarding the use of GTA services in exporting goods by establishing links between the relevant documents. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing for the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of establishing a clear link between the use of GTA services and the export of goods to claim a service tax refund. The case was remanded for further verification, emphasizing the need for compliance with Notification requirements while allowing the appellant an opportunity for a fair hearing during the process.