2014 (1) TMI 353 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claims of Service Tax - Terminal handling charges and repo charges - Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. - Held that - show cause notice was issued on 24-12-2008 and appellant replied to the show cause notice on 25-12-2008 and the Range Officer had submitted the verification report on 7-1-2009, whether the matter was referred to Range Officer for verification after the reply was received or not is not clear from the facts of the case in respect of appeal No. 311/2010. However, the discussion would reveal that the documents were not complete and information was not sufficient to sanction the refund. The revisionary show cause notice is on a totally new ground that the appellant is not at all eligible for the refund since the Service Tax was paid in respect of services not notified under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T - However following precedents - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims of Service Tax on terminal handling charges and repo charges denied based on services provided; Revision order by Commissioner challenged for going beyond original show cause notice.

Analysis:
The appellant filed refund claims for Service Tax paid on terminal handling charges and repo charges, which were initially sanctioned. However, the Commissioner revised the order and demanded the refunded amount after issuing a show cause notice. The appellant argued that the denial of refund was based on providing business auxiliary and support services not covered by a specific Notification. They contended that registration under one service category should not affect refund eligibility for other services. The Commissioner's revision order was challenged for exceeding the original show cause notice's scope. The appellant claimed eligibility for refund based on these grounds.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the services provided were indeed business auxiliary and support services not covered by the relevant Notification. They maintained that the Commissioner's revision did not go beyond the original notice since it was based on the same documents considered by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner concluded that the services for which tax was paid did not fall under the notification, justifying the refund denial.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that a revisionary show cause notice cannot introduce new grounds beyond the original notice. The Tribunal referred to cases where orders beyond the original notice were deemed invalid. In this case, the original notice focused on incomplete documents and lack of information regarding Service Tax payment. The revisionary notice, however, raised a new ground regarding the eligibility for refund based on the services not covered by the Notification. The Tribunal, bound by the cited decisions, allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that new grounds cannot be introduced in revisionary proceedings beyond the scope of the original notice, ensuring judicial discipline and consistency in decision-making.