9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1136 - AT - Service TaxRejection 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 - Technical Inspection and Certification service - 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.
Issues involved:
1. Rejection of service tax refund on various grounds including non-submission of proof of payment, improper invoices, and services not falling under specific categories. 2. Applicability of CESTAT orders in similar cases to the present appeal. 3. Admissibility of refund claims based on previous CESTAT orders. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of service tax refund on various grounds The appeal was filed against the rejection of a service tax refund amounting to ?75,427 for the period 1.4.2008 to 30.6.2008. The refund was rejected based on multiple grounds, including the non-coverage of certain charges under Port services, failure to provide proof of payment of service tax on GTA services, submission of improper invoices, and lack of details in the invoices issued by CHA services. Additionally, the refund claim related to cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services was also rejected due to specific conditions not being satisfied. Issue 2: Applicability of CESTAT orders in similar cases The appellant's consultant argued that the grounds for rejection mentioned in the first issue had been deemed untenable in previous CESTAT orders, specifically citing cases like Shivam Exports & Ors. Vs. CCE, Jaipur and SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur. The consultant clarified that they were not pursuing the refund related to cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services. Issue 3: Admissibility of refund claims based on previous CESTAT orders The Deputy Registrar admitted that the issues raised in the appeal, particularly those related to the rejection of refund based on specific grounds, were already covered by previous CESTAT orders as mentioned by the appellant's consultant. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claims for cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services were inadmissible, while the rest of the refund claims were deemed admissible based on the precedents set by the earlier CESTAT orders. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the applicability of previous CESTAT orders to the present case, where certain grounds for rejection of the service tax refund were found to be invalid. The appeal was partially allowed, with the refund claims related to cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services being held inadmissible, while the remaining refund claims were considered admissible.
|
