2015 (2) TMI 142 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Storage & Warehousing service, Insurance charges, Transportation charge, and Terminal Handling charges - Held that - There is no contrary evidence produced by the department that the warehouse has been used by the appellant for storage of the goods other than the export goods. In fact the appellant is a merchant exporter and all the goods stored in the warehouse have been exported. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellants are entitled for refund of service tax paid on Storage & Warehousing service. - It is seen that the insurance cover has been taken by them for export goods only. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for refund of service tax paid on Insurance charges - transportation charge has not been paid for the exported goods. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellants are entitled for refund of service tax paid on transportation charge. - Terminal Handling charges although not covered it is not disputed that the service has been availed in the course of export of goods. If the CHA has paid the service tax under some other head, that does not disentitle the appellant to claim the service tax paid on Terminal Handling charges. - appellants are entitled for refund of input service credit lying unutilised in their Cenvat credit account - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial for input service credit on Storage & Warehousing service, Insurance charges, Transportation charge, and Terminal Handling charges.

Storage & Warehousing Service:
The refund was denied due to lack of evidence showing exclusive use for storage of export goods. The appellant argued that as a merchant exporter, all goods stored were for export, and no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue. The judge found in favor of the appellant, stating that no evidence showed storage of goods other than exports, entitling them to a refund.

Insurance Charges:
Refund denial was based on lack of specific export consignment correlation in the insurance premium. The appellant contended that insurance cover was for export goods only, not requiring a one-to-one correlation. The judge agreed with the appellant, ruling that as insurance was for export goods, a refund on service tax paid for insurance charges was warranted.

Transportation Charge:
Refund rejection was due to missing exporter's invoice details in the lorry receipt and shipping bill. The appellant admitted a procedural lapse but argued it should not lead to refund denial. The judge sided with the appellant, noting that transportation charges were not disputed for exported goods, justifying a refund on service tax paid for transportation charges.

Terminal Handling Charges:
The denial was based on incomplete invoice conditions. The appellant argued that the charges were paid by the CHA for export goods, and service tax was not in question. The judge agreed, stating that even if the service tax was paid under a different head, the appellant could still claim the service tax paid on terminal handling charges.

In conclusion, the judge set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The appellants were deemed entitled to a refund of unutilized input service credit in their Cenvat credit account for the discussed services.