2015 (11) TMI 1575 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - allowed for the period Jan. 2008 to March 2008 - Notification No. 41/2007 dated 6-10-2007 - Department contended that service tax paid on LDD and TSC charges paid by the respondent to CONCOR for keeping a loaded container in ICD beyond the initial free period did not pertain to GTA service but pertained to storage and warehousing service while refund has been sanctioned treating the same as part of GTA service and is time barred - Held that - the issue of sanction of refund claim of service tax paid on LDD & TSC charges has been discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) citing C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 104/07/2008-S.T. wherein it has been clarified that such storage/temporary warehousing facility is a part and parcel of Goods Transport Agency service. Further as has been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) the respondent had first filed refund claim within 60 days from the end of relevant quarter before Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division Indore who after considerable period advised that the claim should be filed before Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise of another Division which the respondent did on 10-6-2008. In these circumstances it is not unreasonable on the part of lower authorities to treat the refund claim as having been filed with Revenue within the prescribed period of two months from the end of the relevant quarter. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Time bar consideration for refund claim filing.
2. Classification of service tax paid on LDD and TSC charges.

Analysis:
1. The appeal revolves around the contention that the refund claim was not filed within the prescribed time before the proper jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The lower authorities discussed the issue and cited a circular clarifying that storage/warehousing facilities are part of Goods Transport Agency service. The respondent initially filed the claim within the 60-day period but was advised to resubmit it to another division, which was done within a reasonable time frame. Citing a relevant case law, the Tribunal held that the resubmitted claim was a continuation of the original claim and not time-barred. As such, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decision and dismissed the appeal.

2. The second issue pertains to the classification of the service tax paid on LDD and TSC charges. The Revenue argued that these charges were for storage and warehousing services, not GTA services, for which the refund was sanctioned. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, noting that the charges were considered part of GTA services as per a circular and the actions of the respondent in filing the refund claim were deemed appropriate. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal.