2014 (3) TMI 372 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Non fulfillment of condition of Notification 41/07 dated 6.10.07 as amended - Held that - In the case of Hemlines Textiles Exports (2012 (11) TMI 353 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), this tribunal has laid down the procedure for availment of refund claim i.e. whether service tax has been paid or not, whether service has been used or not, whether service falls within the Notification or not. Admittedly, in this case service tax has been paid, service has been used and all the services fall within the Notification. Therefore I hold that appellant is entitled for refund claim as per Notification 41/07 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of refund of service charges under Notification 41/07 - Terminal Handling charges, CHA service, Storage & Warehousing charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Refund Denial: The appellant, an exporter, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on various services, including Terminal Handling charges, CHA Service, and Storage & Warehousing charges. The claim was denied based on the grounds that the service providers did not qualify under the conditions of Notification 41/07 dated 6.10.07 as amended.

2. Appellant's Argument: The consultant for the appellant cited precedents such as the case of Ramdev Food Products and CCE vs. Dishman Pharma & Chemicals Ltd. to support the contention that the services in question fell under the purview of Notification 41/07. He emphasized that the payment of service tax, utilization of services, and alignment with the Notification were the key criteria for refund eligibility, as established in the case law.

3. Adjudication: The tribunal considered the precedents, especially the case of Hemlines Textiles Exports, which outlined the criteria for refund claims. It was noted that in the present case, the service tax had been paid, the services were utilized, and they fell within the ambit of Notification 41/07. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim as per the Notification, overturning the denial and allowing the appeal.

4. Judgment and Relief: The impugned order denying the refund claim of Rs. 3,21,387 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to comply with the order within 30 days of receipt. The decision rested on the fulfillment of criteria outlined in Notification 41/07 and supported by relevant case law precedents.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments, precedents, and the tribunal's reasoning behind allowing the appeal and granting the refund claim based on the fulfillment of criteria specified in the relevant notification and supported by established case law principles.