Service tax refund allowed for diamond exports despite address discrepancy in invoices under Notification 41/2002-ST

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of Cut and Polished Diamonds during October 2015 to March 2016. The tribunal held that appellant fulfilled all conditions under Notification 41/2002-ST dated 29.06.2012 for refund eligibility, having proper registration with Export Promotion Council and Service Tax authorities. Regarding CENVAT Credit denial based on address discrepancy in invoices, CESTAT found appellant had duly applied for address change which was acknowledged by department and incorporated in ST-2 certificate. Following Madras HC precedent, refund cannot be denied merely for address correlation issues when proper registration exists.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute in refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods.
2. Address discrepancy on input service tax invoices.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012.
4. Procedural requirements for refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute in Refund of Service Tax:

The appellants, M/s Living Stones, Mumbai, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. MUM/DGPM/WRU/APP-167/2017-18 dated 17.05.2018, disputing the denial of a refund of service tax paid on input services used for the export of 'Cut and Polished Diamonds' for the period October 2015 to March 2016. The refund was initially sanctioned by the original authority but later denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to address discrepancies on the invoices.

2. Address Discrepancy on Input Service Tax Invoices:

The core issue was the address on the input service tax invoices not matching the registered address of the appellants. The invoices were addressed to the appellants' office at Bandra-Kurla Complex, which was not incorporated in their Service Tax registration details. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund, stating that the invoices should have matched the registered address.

3. Compliance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST:

The Tribunal examined Notification No. 41/2012-ST, which provides for a rebate of service tax on services used for the export of goods. The notification stipulates that exporters must be registered with the Export Promotion Council and the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. The appellants had fulfilled these conditions and registered their new address with the authorities, which was acknowledged.

4. Procedural Requirements for Refund Claims:

The Tribunal noted that the original authority had scrutinized the refund claim and found it compliant with the prescribed procedures and conditions of Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The appellants had notified the change of address to the department, and the new address was incorporated in their ST-2 certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural discrepancies should not deny substantial benefits if the substantive conditions are met.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had duly registered their address and fulfilled all conditions for claiming the refund. The denial of the refund based on address discrepancies was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting a refund of Rs. 2,17,230/- with consequential relief.

Order Pronounced:

The order was pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2024, allowing the appeal and directing the refund to the appellants as per law.

---