2017 (7) TMI 1109 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - services used for export - N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - THC charges - bills of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges - rejected on the ground that same are not covered under port services - Held that - the issue is settled in favour of the appellant vide Tribunal s decision in the case of Shivam Exports & Ors. Vs. CCE Jaipur vide 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that Refund of service tax paid on THC Charges REPO Charges BL charges DDC Charges and hollage charges is admissible in as much as the same are the port services - refund allowed. CHA services - denial on the ground that the license number and copy of license is not produced - Held that - there is no dispute that the service tax has been paid by the service provider under CHA category and such invoices are available in the record - refund allowed. Refund of service tax paid on commission - rejection for the reason that such commission was not required to be paid in view of the exemption notification no. 18/2009 - Held that - Since there is no dispute that the tax has been paid even though exemption is available refund on such service tax paid cannot be denied - refund allowed. Part of the refund also stands rejected for non-submission of original invoices - Held that - certified photo copies of such documents stands submitted - refund cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection on terminal handling charges, CHA services, and commission; non-submission of original invoices.

Analysis:
1. Refund Rejection on Terminal Handling Charges, etc.: The appellant's refund claims on terminal handling charges, bill of lading, and haulage charges were rejected as not covered under port services. However, the Tribunal cited precedents like Shivam Exports & Ors. and SRF Ltd. where similar claims were allowed. Relying on these decisions, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund on these charges.

2. Refund Rejection on CHA Services: The refund claim for CHA services was rejected due to the non-production of CHA license number and copy. Despite this, the Tribunal noted that the service tax had been paid under the CHA category, and invoices were available. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid reason to disallow the refund claim for CHA services, overturning the rejection.

3. Refund Rejection on Commission: The rejection of the refund for service tax paid on commission was based on the commission being exempted under a specific notification. However, the Tribunal ruled that even if the commission was exempt, since the tax was paid, the refund could not be denied. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad to support this reasoning.

4. Non-Submission of Original Invoices: A portion of the refund was also rejected due to the non-submission of original invoices. The appellant had provided certified photo copies of the documents. The Tribunal held that since copies were submitted, the refund could not be denied solely on the ground of non-submission of original invoices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits to the appellants. The decision was pronounced on 13.07.2017.