2016 (9) TMI 1430 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - N/N. 41/2007 dated 6.10.2007 - denial on the ground that the same are not covered by the port services, which are only specified services in terms of notification in question - Held that - As regards the verification of documents, the same can only be done at the level of original adjudicating authority. As such, it is deemed appropriate to set aside all the impugned orders and remand the matters to the Commissioner for fresh consideration of the appellants refund claim in the light of declaration of law by the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund of Service Tax paid on various input services for export purposes; Denial of refund claim by lower authorities; Verification of documents for refund claim.

Analysis:
1. Refund of Service Tax: The issue in this case pertains to the refund of Service Tax paid on input services used for export purposes as per notification No. 41/2007. The lower authorities denied the refund claim, stating that the services such as CHA services, transportation services, and cleaning activities were not covered under the specified port services. However, the Tribunal has previously decided similar issues in various cases, as referenced in the judgment. The Tribunal's decisions in cases like SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur and others provide guidance on such refund claims.

2. Verification of Documents: Another aspect of the issue relates to the verification of documents supporting the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the verification of documents should be conducted by the original adjudicating authority. In light of this, the judgment sets aside the impugned orders and remands the matters to the Commissioner for fresh consideration of the refund claims. The Commissioner is directed to review the appellants' claims in accordance with the Tribunal's decisions and any other relevant precedent decisions provided by the appellants. The Commissioner is also instructed to verify the necessary documents and make a decision based on the findings.

3. Conclusion: The judgment concludes by allowing the appeals through remand, indicating that the lower authorities should re-examine the refund claims considering the legal principles established by the Tribunal and any additional relevant precedents. The importance of proper document verification is highlighted, emphasizing that the original adjudicating authority is responsible for this task. The decision aims to ensure a fair assessment of the refund claims in accordance with the applicable laws and judicial interpretations.