2010 (7) TMI 486 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Respondent is engaged in manufacturing and export of goods and filed refund claim of Rs. 3, 33, 564/- claiming refund service tax paid by them for the period from April 2008 to June 2008 on port services and transport of goods - As regards terminal up handling charges and REPO charges the very same issue had come before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Macro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2010 -TMI - 78579 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD this Tribunal had taken a view that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and REPO charges were admissible under circumstances - in this claim the refund claimed is in respect of transportation from ICD to the port - refund allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claim for service tax paid on port services and transport of goods.
2. Eligibility of refund for terminal handling charges and REPO charges.
3. Interpretation of the notification regarding transportation of goods for refund purposes.

Issue 1: Admissibility of refund claim for service tax paid on port services and transport of goods:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing and export of goods, filed a refund claim for service tax paid amounting to Rs. 3,33,564/- for the period from April 2008 to June 2008 on port services and transport of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, leading to an appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue argued that the refund was not admissible due to the service provider not being authorized by the port for terminal handling charges and REPO charges. Additionally, the Revenue contended that the service for the transport of goods in containers should be by rail, whereas the refund claim was filed for transport by road transport.

Issue 2: Eligibility of refund for terminal handling charges and REPO charges:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case, M/s. Macro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, where it was established that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and REPO charges was admissible under certain circumstances. The Tribunal found merit in this view, rejecting the Revenue's argument against the admissibility of the refund for these charges.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the notification regarding transportation of goods for refund purposes:
Regarding the transportation of goods, the Tribunal analyzed the notification providing for the refund of service tax paid on transportation from the place of manufacture to ICD or from ICD to the port. The refund claimed in this case was for transportation from ICD to the port by road transport. The Tribunal noted that the notification did not specify that transportation must be by rail, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and dismissed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of the refund claim for service tax paid on port services and transport of goods, including terminal handling charges and REPO charges. The Tribunal's interpretation of the notification regarding transportation of goods favored the appellant, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.