2011 (6) TMI 230 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Export of goods - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. - Input services lime THC Repo Charges B/L Charges Fumigation Charges Transportation charges/freight Courier Agency CONCOR charges and export bill collection charges - Commissioner has observed that certain conditions which are essential and procedural conditions and are rectifiable defects does not stand fulfilled by the appellants - The appellant s submission is that the above technical omissions referred to by the lower authorities cannot be made the basis for denial of substantial benefits - They submit that they are in a position to establish that the said input services are eligible to goods exported by them - Set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for examining the appellant s claim for refund of input service credit availed by them - Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for various input services like THC charges, Repo charges, B/L charges, Fumigation charges, Transportation charges/freight, Courier Agency charges, CONCOR charges, and export bill collection charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellants, engaged in export business, filed a refund claim for a specific period under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. While a part of the claim was allowed, the refund claims for various input services were rejected by the original adjudicating authority.

2. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the rejection of refund for TCH charges/repo charges, stating they were not specified services for refund. He also found that the appellants failed to prove that the service provider for TCH charges was authorized by the Port, leading to rejection of the refund claim.

3. Regarding transportation freight charges, the Commissioner observed that the conditions of Notification No. 3/2008-ST were not fulfilled, resulting in the rightful rejection of the refund claim by the original adjudicating authority. Similarly, refund for courier agency services was rejected as the invoices did not meet the notification conditions.

4. The Commissioner also noted that commission paid to banks was not eligible for refund as per Notification No. 17/2008-ST, since the goods were exported before the specified date. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, leading to the current appeal.

5. The advocate for the appellants cited various Tribunal decisions to support their claim for refund of Repo charges and THC charges. The advocate argued that technical omissions pointed out by the lower authorities should not be a basis for denying substantial benefits, as they could establish the eligibility of the input services for goods exported.

6. Considering the arguments presented, the judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reevaluation of the appellant's claim for refund of input service credit. The decision was influenced by the Tribunal decisions cited by the advocate, indicating a possible entitlement to the refund as per the legal precedents.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, the reasons for rejection of refund claims, the arguments presented by the appellants, and the final decision made by the judge to remand the matter for further examination based on relevant legal precedents.