2016 (5) TMI 1289 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST - THC charges - bills of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges - whether denial of refund claim justified on the ground that the services are not port services and proof of payment of GTA services and proper invoices not submitted? - CHA services - as per OIO, description of goods not mentioned in the invoices issued by CHA - reliance placed in the decision of Shivam Exports and others vs. CCE, Jaipur, 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/s. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Held that - the issue of the cases of Shivam Exports and SRF Ltd. is squarely similar to the case in hand and decision in the case apply. It was held in the cases that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges, repo charges and Bill of lading charges and haulage charges are available to the exporters. Also it was held that if the documents produced are debit notes and giving all the details and particulars as required under Rule 4A of the STR 1994, the refund cannot be denied on the technical ground that the documents are not invoices but debit notes. Cleaning activity - Courier services - the appellant is not pressing for refund of service tax on cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification service - refund disallowed. Following the decision of the cases mentioned, the refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of service tax refund on various charges under Port Services.
2. Non-submission of proper invoice.
3. Cleaning activity not meeting Notification conditions.
4. Lack of details in CHA services invoices.
5. Rejection of service tax refund on courier services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a service tax refund amounting to &8377;39,053 for the period from 1.10.2007 to 31.12.2007. The grounds for rejection included charges like THC charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, and repo charges, stating that they were not covered under Port Services and lacked proof of tax deposition under port services. However, the Ld. Consultant argued citing previous CESTAT decisions that these grounds were not valid for rejecting refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST.

2. The issue of non-submission of proper invoice, specifically mentioning that debit notes were not considered prescribed documents, was also raised. The Ld. Consultant highlighted that previous CESTAT judgments had deemed this ground untenable for rejecting refund claims, further strengthening the appellant's case.

3. Concerning the cleaning activity not meeting the conditions specified in the Notification, the Ld. Consultant explicitly mentioned that they were not pressing for the refund related to this activity. Additionally, the issue regarding CHA services, where the description of goods was not mentioned in the invoices and lacked details of other expenses, was resolved in favor of the appellant based on previous CESTAT judgments.

4. The rejection of the service tax refund on courier services, citing that it was not a specified service, was also addressed. The Ld. Consultant clarified that they were not pursuing this point. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, disallowing the refund claims related to cleaning activity and courier services, while approving the rest of the refund claim amount.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments presented, the grounds for rejection, and the Tribunal's decision based on previous precedents and the arguments put forth by the Ld. Consultant.