Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2012 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 737 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim of service tax paid on terminal handling charges - rejection on ground that terminal handling charges was not one of the services mentioned in Notification No.41/2007-ST - also rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond six months prescribed under notification No.41/2007 - Held that - Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier year has held that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges in case of exports is admissible. As regards limitation, since the department itself has taken the view that claim submitted after 07.07.09 have to be considered under Notification No.17/2009-ST, the submission of the assessee that authorities erred in considering the refund claim under notification No.41/2007 and when the benefit was available under notification No. 17/2009, the same should have been extended especially when it was claimed in reply to the SCN and before the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal, is accepted. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of service not mentioned in specific notification. 2. Rejection of refund claim based on time limitation under notification. 3. Interpretation of trade notice regarding applicability of different notifications for refund claims. 4. Consideration of the department's view on the submission date for refund claims. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, addressed the rejection of a refund claim by the appellant concerning service tax paid on terminal handling charges. The claim was denied due to the service not being explicitly listed in Notification No.41/2007-ST. Additionally, the claim was dismissed for being filed beyond the stipulated six-month period as per the notification. The appellant's counsel referred to a previous Tribunal order in their favor, highlighting that refund for terminal handling charges in export cases was permissible. The counsel also cited a trade notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh, emphasizing that claims post-07.07.09 should be considered under Notification No.17/2009. The Tribunal acknowledged the counsel's arguments and accepted the department's view that claims post-07.07.09 should indeed be processed under Notification No.17/2009-ST. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh review of the claim in line with the Tribunal's orders and the department's stance on the issue.
|