Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 was admissible on services used for export purposes, and whether refund could be denied on the ground that the claim was supported by debit notes or for want of proof of payment by the service provider to the Revenue.
Analysis: The refund claims related to services utilized for export activity and the Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in earlier decisions in favour of admissibility. The Tribunal also relied on prior decisions holding that debit notes are acceptable documents for refund purposes. The objection that no proof was produced showing payment by the service provider to the Revenue was also rejected in the earlier decisions followed by the Tribunal. Claims for cleaning activities and technical inspection and certification services were not pressed, and a small amount relating to third party export was also not contested in one matter.
Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to refund of service tax on the admissible services, and the objections based on debit notes and alleged absence of proof of payment by the service provider were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for grant of refund wherever admissible, with unpressed items not surviving for adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund of service tax on export-related services cannot be denied merely because the supporting documents are debit notes or because separate proof is not produced that the service provider deposited the tax with the Revenue, where earlier binding tribunal decisions have held otherwise.