2012 (8) TMI 288 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund of service tax - notification No.41/07 - port services - Held that - What is required to be seen whether service tax was paid for the service rendered under the admissible services category or not. If the service tax has been paid under business auxiliary service appellant may not be eligible. Before sanctioning refund in respect of services provided the category of service and for which service tax has been paid may be verified from the invoice or any other document that may be produced by the appellants before a decision is taken. GTA service - Refund claim cannot be rejected on technical grounds like invoices issued by transport agencies do not contain all the details. If the appellant is able to correlate the export goods with the documents supporting service tax payment such a refund should be granted. GTA service received for transportation of empty container - it cannot be denied that the transport of empty container to the exporter s premises was necessary and was received in relation to exported goods - The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on various services under notification No.41/07.
2. Refund claim rejection for port services due to invoice source and service provider authorization.
3. Refund eligibility for service tax paid on port services based on statutory definition.
4. Refund claim rejection for GTA service due to missing details.
5. Consideration of evidence for refund eligibility on technical testing and analysis service.
6. Admissibility of GTA service for transportation of empty container in relation to export.
7. Time-barred claim rejection and applicability of subsequent Tribunal decisions.

Issue 1:
The appeals were heard collectively concerning the eligibility for service tax refund under notification No.41/07. The Tribunal passed a common order due to the commonality of services and the notification under which the refund was claimed.

Issue 2:
The refund claim for port services was initially rejected because the invoice was from a different source than the service provider and lacked authorization. However, the Tribunal held that if service tax was paid for port services, the refund is admissible regardless of the service provider's authorization, citing previous decisions.

Issue 3:
Regarding GTA service, the refund claim rejection was based on missing details for goods transport. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant can link export goods with documents supporting service tax payment, the refund should be granted, referencing a previous decision for guidance.

Issue 4:
The rejection of the technical testing and analysis service claim was due to the invoice being in a different name. The Tribunal stated that if the appellants can prove payment of service tax and the relationship with exported goods, the refund may be sanctioned, highlighting the need for evidence and fulfillment of conditions.

Issue 5:
The admissibility of GTA service for transporting empty containers to the exporter's premises was confirmed as necessary for exported goods, aligning with the notification's provision for service tax refund related to export services.

Issue 6:
A claim rejection based on being time-barred was addressed, with the Tribunal mentioning subsequent decisions applicable to the notification and amendment notifications. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration based on the observations made in the order, allowing for the consideration of cited cases by the appellants.