Refund of port services cannot be denied on the ground that the service provider was not authorised by port – It should be allowed provided service tax was paid to the service provider by the recipient. Refund of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services should be allowed based on the debit notes issued by the service provider vide Rule 4A of the Service Tax R ules, 1994 and R ule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Refund of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services should be allowed based on the debit notes issued by the service provider vide Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The appellant claimed refund of CENVAT Credit on port services and GTA services on exporting finished goods. The refund claim for port services was rejected on the ground that the service provider was not the authorised person of the port. The refund claim for GTA services was rejected on the ground that the CENVAT Credit was claimed on the basis of debit note and the original copies of debit note/invoice were not signed and as such, the appellant could not produce sufficient documentary proof to the satisfaction of the lower authorities.

Held:

The issue with respect to port services has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the following cases:

• Dishman Pharma & Chemicals Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 246
•  Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (19) STR 833

With respect to refund of GTA services, the Tribunal observed that proviso to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 specifically allowed any document containing requisite details from a GTA service provider. Further, Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules provided that the Adjudicating Authority could accept any document containing details as specified in the said Rule and the appellant provided a detailed statement showing the details of value of services, service tax payable and paid etc. and the same could be considered to be valid in the absence of the ledger. The self certified copies of documents cannot be a reason to reject the refund claim and the same is a curable defect and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority.