TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denial of refund on the ground that document issued by service provider was not a prescribed document does not appear to be supported by the relevant rule 4A - apply Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and examine the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid and refund - details given by the appellant as regards proof of payment of service tax are sufficient and the original adjudicating authority can get it verified in case of doubt - appellant was required to produce self certified copies of documents which they have failed to do, it is a curable defect and the appellant could have been asked to cure the defect - refund claim in respect of Port service is allowed - refund claim in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service provider was authorized by port or not. The decisions in which a view has been taken are as under: i) Dishman Pharma Chemicals Ltd - 2011 (021) STR 0246 ii) Ramdev Food Products Pvt.Ltd. - 2010 (9) STR 833 4. As regards denial of the refund on the ground that debit note cannot be a document, I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the ld.Counsel that according to proviso to Rule 4A 'in case the provider of taxable service is good transport agency, providing service to any person, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, an invoice, a bill or as the case may be, a challan shall include any document by whatever name called, which shall contain the details of the consignment note, numbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as regards proof of payment of service tax are sufficient and the original adjudicating authority can get it verified in case of doubt. Therefore, the question of not having evidence cannot arise. Another observation made is that the appellant was required to produce self certified copies of documents which they have failed to do. Ld. Counsel submits that they had submitted self certified copies. In any case, it is a curable defect and the appellant could have been asked to cure the defect rather than using it as a tool to reject the claim. 5. In view of the above discussion, the refund claim in respect of Port service is allowed and refund claim in respect of transport service is remanded back to original adjudicating authority to deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
