June 2013
2013 – TIOL – 675 – CESTAT – AHM – M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhavnagar.
By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Refund of service tax: Reclassification of the service at the recipient’s end cannot be done by authorities to deny CENVAT credit.
Facts:
The Appellant filed refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07-07-2009 for January-March, 2010 wherein refund of service tax was granted for specified input services used for exports on submission of documentary evidence as specified. Appellant’s refund claim was partially rejected on the ground that the input services under the head of technical testing & analysis service or custom house agent’s service were not in relation to export of goods. Appellant contended that the service provider had discharged the service tax under the above categories and thus entitled to refund. The Appellant also relied on the cases of (i) 2012-TIOL-1305-CESTAT–Ahm, Akansha Overseas, Rachana Art Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Surat and (ii) 2012-TIOL-1264-CESTAT-MUM, Jollyboard Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad.
Held:
It is a settled law that classification of service is to be done at the service provider’s end and not in the hands of the recipient. Thus, the classification as provided on the invoices of the service provider should be accepted and refund be granted in view of the decisions of Akansha Overseas and Jollyboard Ltd. (supra).
