9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 635 - AT - Service TaxRefund under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dt.06.10.2007 - CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid by the transport agency for transporting empty containers from Inland Container Depot or airport to the factory of the respondent - Held that - This issue stands settled by the decision in the case of Choice Sanitaryware Industries Vs CCE Bhavnagar (2009 (2) TMI 116 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) wherein it was held that the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on goods transport agency service received by them for bringing the empty containers in the factory premises as also the Service Tax paid on handling/agency charges in respect of services enjoyed at the port of export. Reference was also made in the case of CCE Rajkot Vs Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (2) TMI 770 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and CCE Rajkot Vs Adani Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (7) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). Thus appellants are entitled for refund of the Service Tax paid on goods transport agency service received by them for bringing the empty containers in the factory premises - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Refund claim of Service Tax on transportation of empty containers from Inland Container Depot to factory; Interpretation of Notification No. 41/2007-ST; Validity of agreement between transporter and appellant; Applicability of previous judgments by CESTAT Ahmedabad; Binding nature of Tribunal's order on Appellate Collectors. Analysis: The appeal pertains to a refund claim of Rs.72,823/- on Service Tax paid by a transport agency for transporting empty containers from Inland Container Depot to the factory of the appellant. The issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No.41/2007-ST, specifying services eligible for refund. The Departmental Representative argued that the services provided were for container transport for export goods only, not for direct movement of goods to the depot or airport. The first appellate authority rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the transportation was for empty containers from port to factory and back, not just from factory to port. The authority also questioned the validity of the agreement between the appellant and the transporter, as it was not signed by both parties, and deemed it a mere quotation. Upon review, the Judge found that previous judgments by CESTAT Ahmedabad supported the appellant's claim. The Judge referenced the case law of Choice Sanitaryware Industries and upheld the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT Credit and refund of Service Tax paid on goods transport agency services for bringing empty containers to the factory premises. The Judge also cited the decision in UOI Vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd, emphasizing the binding nature of Tribunal's orders on Appellate Collectors. Consequently, the Judge upheld the first appellate authority's order, ruling in favor of the appellant and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the judgment affirms the legality of the first appellate authority's decision, supported by relevant case law and statutory provisions. The ruling clarifies the eligibility of the appellant for the refund claim and highlights the importance of adhering to Tribunal decisions and principles of judicial discipline in tax matters.
|
