2015 (6) TMI 827 - AT - Service Tax

Refund under Notification No. 41/07-ST or No. 17/09-ST - Certain services notified on the date of claiming of refund and not on the date of export - Procedural infractions in respect of export documents - Held that - This Tribunal in the case of East India Minerals Ltd. 2012 (8) TMI 22 - CESTAT, KOLKATA under somewhat identical circumstances, allowed refund for export related service under Notification no. 41/07-ST, since on the date of claim, the service was duly notified for this purpose,irrespective of the period of export. As regards refund of Terminal Handling charges (THC) on the ground that invoice was raised by shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorization from port authorities, I find that these issues stand concluded in favour of the appellant vide Board Circular dt. 12.3.09 as well as various case laws as referred to and relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 187 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and Fibre Bond Industries 2014 (3) TMI 372 - CESTAT MUMBAI . As such, I hold that appellant is entitled to refund claim on THC services. As regards refund claim on GTA services, It is rightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, that it is almost impossible to mention export invoice details on incoming transportation documents, since export despatch is yet to take place, and this is only inward movement of containers to be used for exports, I find that container number mentioned on LR/transport documents tallies with export documents (running page 48 of appeal paper book) thereby proper co-relation stands established. Thus, the refund claim for FTA service is held to be allowable. I further find that in terms of Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dt. 12.3.09, procedural infractions in respect of export documents require to be ignored while granting refund. Once it is not in dispute that Services stand qualified for refund purpose, on the date of claim, and Service Tax was actually paid on specified service pertaining to export activity, in terms of the broad scheme of refund under Notification No. 41/07-ST, refund must be allowed and paid to the exporter. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection under Notification No. 41/07-ST for services used for export purposes.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 41/07-ST for services used for export purposes. The Appellant had availed Terminal Handling Service (THC), GTA services (export), and CHA/C&F agency services for exporting goods. The refund claims were rejected on various grounds, including services provided before the exemption period, time-barred claims, and lack of documentation for services provided. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in a partial acceptance of refund claims.

Terminal Handling Charges (Port Service):
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the THC refund claim due to the lack of evidence of authorization from the Port Trust. However, the Appellant argued that registration under a different service category should not result in denial of refund. The Appellant cited relevant case laws and circulars to support their claim. The Tribunal found that the denial of refund based on registration category was not sustainable, and the refund on THC services was held admissible.

GTA Service:
The refund claim for GTA services was challenged on the grounds that the inward movement of empty containers was not exclusively for export purposes. The Appellant argued that the containers were necessary for exporting finished goods and that mentioning export invoice details on incoming transportation documents was impractical. The Tribunal noted that proper correlation between container numbers and export documents was established, leading to the allowance of the refund claim for GTA services.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order. Refund claims under Notification No. 41/07-ST for services used for export purposes were granted to the Appellant. The adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund within 30 days from the date of the order. The decision was pronounced on 05.03.2015.