Order Date – 13 October 2023 

Parties: M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh-I

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. filed refund claims for service tax paid in respect of service tax paid on invoices of service providers for Custom House Agent services, Export Commission paid to foreign Agent, Transport of Goods by road from Factory to ICD and Transport of Goods by Rail from ICD to Port of Export used for export of goods.
• A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim and the original authority rejected the refund claim of the appellant.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of service tax paid on invoices of service providers for Custom House Agent services, Export Commission paid to foreign Agent, Transport of Goods by road and rail?

 Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the agreement as well as the certificates from the CHAS for acting as pure agents furnished by the appellant while rejecting the refund claim. Hence it was held that that the appellants are entitled to refund of service tax paid on CHA Services subject to verification by lower authorities.
• Further Ld. Commissioner failed to consider the confirmation of contract which has been produced by the appellant which specifies the percentage of commission amount which creates indefeasible right of the commission agent. Hene the condition laid down in the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 are satisfied and the appellant is entitled to get the refund on this service subject to verification by the lower authorities.
• In respect of service tax paid on transport of goods by Road and Rail, it was observed that debit notes are issued by the service providers in lieu of invoices, relaying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. reported as 2011 TIOL 1660 CESTAT DEL has held that the "debit notes" contain all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoice and except for its name. Therefore, it can be treated as equivalent to invoice.
• Further, it has also been clarified by the CBEC Vide Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 that the certified copy of the documents should be accepted in order to facilitate the refund. Thus it was held that the refund on this ground has wrongly been rejected and the appellants are entitled to refund of service tax paid on the impugned services subject to verification by the lower authorities.
• The appeals are allowed.