2016 (7) TMI 1224 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - terminal handling charges - inland haulage - bill of lading charges - repo charges - N/N. 41/2007- ST dated 6.10.2007 - whether rejection of claim on the ground that these services are not port services justified? - Held that - the issue is no more res-integra as decided in the case Shivam Exports and others vs. CCE Jaipur 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held 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. Similarly in respect of Service Tax paid on the transportation services for movement of empty containers from the port area back to the factory was considered to be a service in respect of which the Service Tax paid on the same was available as refund to the assessee in terms of notification No. 41/07. Production of proper invoices and debit notes - Held that - the decision in the case of M/s. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI relied upon where 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. In the case of M/s. Satyam Enterprises a part of the refund claim to the extent of 23, 956/- (Rupees Twentythree thousand nine hundred fifty-six only) stand denied on the ground that the goods were not exported by the assessee themselves but were exported through merchant exporters in which case refund cannot be granted to the appellant. Learned advocate appearing for the said appellant submits that he is not challenging the said part of the impugned order passed in the case of M/s. Satyam Enterprises. appeal disposed off - decided in favor of appellant except the refund of 23, 956/- (Rupees Twenty-three thousand nine hundred fifty-six only) involved in the case of M/s. Satyam Enterprises.

Summary

Issues: Refund of service tax on various services used in export, denial of refund claims by lower authorities, validity of invoices and debit notes, applicability of precedent decisions on refund claims, denial of part of refund claim for goods exported through merchant exporters.

Analysis:
1. Refund of Service Tax on Various Services Used in Export: The appellants, exporters of a final product, sought a refund of service tax paid on services used in the export of goods. The lower authorities denied the refund claims, contending that the services were not specified services and that the service providers were not registered under port services. Additionally, objections were raised regarding the lack of proper invoices and the prescribed documents for refund. The original and appellate authorities rejected the refund claims based on these grounds.

2. Validity of Invoices and Debit Notes: The Tribunal considered the issue of whether refund claims could be denied based on technical grounds related to the nature of documents produced. Citing precedent decisions, it was noted that if the documents, such as debit notes, provided all required details as per Rule 4A of the STR 1994, the refund could not be denied solely on the basis that the documents were not invoices but debit notes. This approach was followed to allow the appeals of other assessees, emphasizing the importance of the content and compliance of the documents submitted for refund claims.

3. Applicability of Precedent Decisions on Refund Claims: The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as the case of Shivam Exports and others vs. CCE, Jaipur, and M/s. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, to establish the availability of refund for service tax paid on various charges related to export activities. These decisions supported the exporters' entitlement to refunds for services like terminal handling charges, haulage charges, and transportation services for movement of empty containers. By aligning with these precedents, the Tribunal resolved the issues in favor of the assessee, emphasizing consistency in interpreting refund provisions.

4. Denial of Part of Refund Claim for Goods Exported Through Merchant Exporters: A specific issue arose concerning the denial of a part of the refund claim for an appellant who exported goods through merchant exporters instead of directly. The Tribunal noted that a portion of the refund claim amounting to ?23,956 was denied on the basis that the goods were not exported by the assessee themselves. The advocate for the appellant did not contest this denial, indicating acceptance of the decision regarding this particular aspect of the refund claim.

5. Final Decision: After considering the arguments and precedent decisions, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals by setting aside the impugned orders, except for the refund amount of ?23,956 involved in the case of M/s. Satyam Enterprises. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal's decision favoring the appellants based on the established legal principles and interpretations of relevant provisions.