2013 (7) TMI 457 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate Claim - whether the appellant can claim rebate on two transactions of the service tax paid on GTA service used for transportation of goods from their factory to the port of export - Held that - Appellant is entitled to a rebate on one of the transaction - it is not the case of the department that the lorry receipts did not tally with the export documents in respect of other essential particulars - in other words, a broad correlation is found in the case of the assessee - for the second claim of refund there is no specific reference to the input service on which rebate is claimed, let alone any nexus between the input service and the export of goods - thus the appellant has failed to establish any basis for the rebate claim appeal decided partly in the favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims for service tax paid on GTA service and stockyard rent for the period from April to June 2009.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was against the rejection of rebate claims amounting to Rs. 1,35,802 for service tax paid on GTA service used for transporting goods to the port of export and Rs. 8,499 for service tax paid on stockyard rent. The Tribunal referred to a previous Final Order in favor of the appellant regarding the rebate claim for GTA service. The Final Order highlighted that transportation from the factory to the port required aggregation at the port premises for export consignments, justifying a correlation between evidence of transportation, service tax paid, and quantity exported. In this case, goods were directly transported to the port, with no dispute on quantity or service tax paid. The lower authorities denied rebate due to missing exporter's invoice details in lorry receipts, but a broad correlation was found, entitling the appellant to the rebate of Rs. 1,35,802.

2. Concerning the rebate claim of Rs. 8,499 for stockyard rent, the appellant referred to a land allotment letter from Kakinada Sea Ports Ltd. The appellant argued that the Custom House agent was authorized by the port for the goods, making rent paid for keeping goods in the port area eligible for refund. However, the Tribunal noted a lack of specific reference to the input service or nexus between the input service and goods' export in the written submissions. As a result, the appellant failed to establish a basis for the rebate claim, rendering the claim inadmissible.

3. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting the rebate of Rs. 1,35,802 for service tax paid on GTA service while rejecting the claim of Rs. 8,499 for stockyard rent.

This judgment highlights the importance of establishing a clear correlation between service tax paid, transportation evidence, and quantity exported to support rebate claims. It also emphasizes the necessity of providing specific details and demonstrating a direct nexus between input services and export activities when claiming rebates.