2015 (3) TMI 41 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - failure to comply with the condition of the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Business Auxiliary services and CHA - Held that - As the facts of the case of the Indoworth (India) Ltd. (2011 (6) TMI 311 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) are similar to the facts of this case therefore, following the precedent decision, I hold that the appellants are entitled for refund claim as it is not in dispute that the appellant has not received the services and not paid the service tax thereon. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on non-compliance with Notification No. 41/2007-ST.

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter, sought refund of service tax paid on services like Documentation, Terminal Handling, CHA under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The adjudicating authority denied the claim, stating the services were not covered. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, citing the service provider's registration under Business Auxiliary Services, not Port Services. The appellant challenged this.

The appellant's advocate referenced a similar case, Indoworth (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Nagpur, where the Tribunal ruled that verification of the supplier's registration isn't needed for taxable services used for export. Once service tax is paid, refund is due under the Notification.

Considering the precedent set by Indoworth (India) Ltd., the judge ruled in favor of the appellant. The appellant, not receiving the services and not paying service tax on them, is entitled to the refund claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed with any consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies that for taxable services used for export, verification of the supplier's registration isn't a prerequisite for refund eligibility under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The decision aligns with past rulings and ensures exporters can claim refunds without additional burdens.