2012 (4) TMI 535 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of service tax paid - terminal handling charges and repo charges - invoices are issued by third parties and not by the actual service provider and do not reflect the details such as name, address and registration etc. of the actual service provider - Held that - In respect of service tax paid on transport of goods from the inland container depot to the port of export through road carriers and railways, refund has been rejected on the ground that the invoices bear the note service tax to be paid by you directly to the government at the time of payment to us. A view has been taken that the remark shows that M/s. Sai Krupa Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. is not paying the service tax but the service receiver has to pay the tax. As regards refund claim in respect of technical testing and the analysis service and services of inspection and certification of agency, it has been held that the applicant failed to produce evidence of payment of service tax to the government. In the appeal memorandum other than submitting that refund claim has been rejected wrongly and appellant has satisfied all the conditions and limitations as per the notification is concerned, there is no other submission. No documents have been enclosed to the appeal memorandum other than show cause notice, order-in-original and the impugned order. Appellants have also not come forward to offer any documentary evidence even though seven opportunities were given to them for explaining their case - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved: Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on various services in respect of goods exported.

Eligibility for Refund of Service Tax:
The issue in this appeal revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for a refund of service tax paid on various services related to goods exported by them. The appellant had been unrepresented during multiple hearings, leading to the matter being taken up for decision. The impugned order rejected the refund of service tax on terminal handling charges, repo charges, transport of goods, technical testing, analysis service, and inspection and certification of agency. The rejection was based on various grounds including the lack of details on invoices, notes indicating the service receiver should pay the tax, and failure to provide evidence of payment to the government. The appellant's appeal memorandum lacked substantial submissions or enclosed documents, despite multiple opportunities given for explanation. After reviewing the records and hearing the arguments, the judge found no merit in the appeal and consequently rejected it.

---