Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1151 - AT - Service TaxDenial of refund claim - Business auxiliary service, consulting engineer and transport of goods by road services - Non fulfillment of conditions under Rule 3(2) of Export of Services Rules - Nexus between debit notes and services rendered - Held that:- debit notes comply with the requirement of invoices and there is proper linkage for realizing all the amounts. In fact, the Rules provided for the details to be contained in invoices and the name of the document is not relevant. Further the Rules also provide in the case of assessees who availed CENVAT credit on the basis of documents containing certain deficiencies, the deficiencies in the invoices can be ignored - The original adjudicating authority himself admitted that as per the Board Circular 111/05/09-ST dated 24.2.2009, the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance is the relevant factor. Service receiver was located abroad. Once it is established that location of service receiver is sufficient for determining whether service was export of service and the service receiver was located aboard, the only requirement for assessee to get the refund should be to show that he had actually realized the amount for the services rendered by providing documentary evidence and he has actually paid the service tax. These two requirements have been fulfilled when we go through the debit notes, FIRCs and the CA certificates. As regards unjust enrichment, even as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, in case of rebate in respect of exported goods, this need not be examined. The claim of the appellant is similar to rebate. Only the name has not been mentioned since the claim has been made on the ground of export of service. Therefore, unjust enrichment clause itself may not be applicable. From the debit notes it is quite clear that no service tax was charged and therefore the collection of service tax apparently has not been made. FIRCs amount tallies with the debit note. Under these circumstances it cannot be stated that the appellants have charged service tax - respondents are eligible for refund which has been sanctioned - Decided against Revenue.
|