Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2540 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Rebate claims - Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19/4/2005 - export of Business Auxiliary Services i.e. Call Center Services - service tax paid on input services - non-obtainance of service tax registration prior to export of service - Held that:- there is no provision in law that for the purpose of refund of duty/ service tax suffered on input/ input services prior registration is required. The said payment of duty/ service tax on input/ input services is nothing to do with the registration of the recipient of the services therefore registration cannot be made criteria to reject the refund claim. Rebate claim - not followed statutory procedures of prior declaration laid down for export of services under Notification No. 12/2005-ST - Held that:- the appellant due to some practical difficulties did not file the said declaration before export of the services however such declaration was filed alongwith the rebate claim. In this fact we are of the view that the declaration was indeed filed before the grant of rebate claim. The Adjudicating authority can very well verify the information containing in the declaration and after satisfying, the rebate claim can be sanctioned therefore even though the declaration was not filed prior to the export of the services, this cannot be the reason for rejection of the claim particularly when the export of service is not under dispute. Rebate claim - non-submission of agreement - Held that:- it is not acceptable ground for rejection of rebate claim for the reason that there is no statutory requirement of agreement between service provider and foreign service recipient, so long 100% services of the appellant have been admittedly exported and convertible foreign exchange were remitted by the foreign recipient, the export transaction has been completed, therefore merely for non-submission of agreement does not debar appellant from rebate claim. Rebate claim - debit note for the input services - whether admissible Cenvatable documents under the Service Tax Rules, 1994 or not - Held that:- firstly the debit note is also a admissible documents as proof of payment of service tax so long as it contains all the information required under the Rule 9(2) of the CCR, 2004. In the case of Pharma Lab Process Equipments P. Ltd Vs. CE, Ahmedabad [2009 (4) TMI 142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] -Cenvat credit was allowed on the strength of debit note therefore debit note has been considered as valid documents. Secondly, in the present case, in our view, it is not the case of Cenvat credit, whereas it is a case of rebate of service tax suffered on the input service, the only requirement is that to ensure the service tax which is to be rebated has been suffered on the input services. From the debit note it is established that input services has suffered the service tax, which has to be given as rebate to the appellant. Rebate claim - no clarity of the recipient of the service - Held that:- we are of the view that this observation was made on the basis of non-receipt of invoices. As per the submission of the appellant that all the invoices were submitted and the services till December, 2005 were provided to UK and Australia and from January, 2006 services were provided to Hutchison. This can be verified from the invoices. Since no verification of the claim was properly carried out by the Adjudicating authority, it is premature to make a final view on this aspect. Rebate claim - FIRC of HSBC Bank, Hong Kong submitted by the appellant are not with reference to the invoices, letters submitted by the appellant. It shows 'only advance against export of services to be rendered' or 'fund transfer', the appellant have not explained this term - Held that:- we are of the view that irrespective of any terminology used in the FIRC against invoice raised for the services, the said remittance must be considered as payment of service provided by the appellant. Therefore merely because such terminology used in the FIRC, it cannot be concluded that this remittance is not related to the export of services, unless it is proved that such remittance is from some other transaction, which is not the Revenue's case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that rebate claims were wrongly rejected on the ground taken in the adjudication order and in impugned order of first appellate authority, therefore it is not sustainable. - Appeals disposed of by way of remand
|