Tribunal allows refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST despite foreign services. Computer-generated invoices accepted.

The appellant's refund claim was initially denied under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that despite services being provided abroad, service tax had been paid and deposited with the Revenue, entitling the appellant to claim a refund. Regarding the non-production of original invoices, the Tribunal accepted computer-generated invoices supported by a certificate from the service provider, overturning the rejection of the claim based on this issue. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012.
2. Requirement of payment of service tax on services provided abroad.
3. Non-production of original invoices.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of their refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The impugned order was based on the grounds that the service provider was not required to pay service tax on services provided abroad and that original invoices were not produced.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both parties and noted that although the services were provided abroad, the service provider had paid service tax, which had been deposited with the Revenue. As per Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant was entitled to file a refund claim for the service tax they had borne. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to claim the refund.

3. Addressing the issue of original invoices, the Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted computer-generated invoices, which did not require a signature. However, the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (A) presumed these invoices to be non-original. The appellant provided a certificate from the service provider to validate the invoices. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the refund claim could not be rejected solely on the basis of non-production of original invoices. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---