2017 (3) TMI 1550 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - terminal handling charges - Bill of lading charges - denial on the ground that these services are not under port services - Held that - the issue has already been settled by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of AIA Engineering Pvt.Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 1044 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that these services are covered under port service - the appellant is entitled to claim refund in respect of terminal handling charges and Bill of lading charges under port services in terms of N/N. 41/2007-ST 6.10.2007. Refund claim - CHA services - denial on the ground that there is no mention about exact service availed by the appellant from the concerned CHA - Held that - there are relatable invoices and certificates have been issued by the CHA for providing the said service to the appellant - the appellant is entitled for refund for service received from the CHA for export of the goods. It was disputed that on goods transport agency, the appellant has not produced lorry receipt or has not produced any evidence to the extent of payment of service tax by them or service provider in question - the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact of payment of transportation charges and service tax thereon by the assessee. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim for terminal handling charges and Bill of lading charges under port services.
2. Refund claim for CHA services.
3. Refund claim for goods transport agency services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST for services used in exporting goods. The claim for terminal handling and Bill of lading charges was initially denied, stating these services were not under port services. However, referencing a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was established that these services fall under port services. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to a refund for these charges under the said notification.

2. The refund claim for CHA services was also rejected due to lack of specifics about the services availed. However, it was noted that the CHA had issued invoices and certificates related to the services provided to the appellant. Based on this evidence, it was concluded that the appellant is eligible for a refund for the services received from the CHA for exporting goods.

3. Regarding the refund claim for goods transport agency services, it was disputed that the appellant did not provide a lorry receipt or evidence of service tax payment by either themselves or the service provider. As a result, the refund was initially denied. The appellant argued that they were both consignee and consignor, and had paid the service tax, providing evidence to the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the payment of transportation charges and service tax by the appellant, considering the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the decision favoring the appellant on the refund claims for terminal handling charges, Bill of lading charges, and CHA services, while further investigation was required for the refund claim related to goods transport agency services.