2015 (7) TMI 100 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - port service - Customs House Agent service - Held that - Customs House Agent in addition to handling the documentation and customs formalities, they also handle the goods in the port area and uses the services of various service providers operating in the port area. It is not in dispute the goods were exported, were handled in the port area, terminal handling operation were carried out and service tax on such port services was paid which would have been carried out at the instances of CHA perhaps by some other service provider/authority and under the circumstances it will not be appropriate to deny the refund of the service tax paid on the port service, just because invoices are of CHA who is not authorized to provide port service. In respect of the courier service, I find the objection is only that in the invoices issued by the courier agency service, export invoice number & IEC code of the appellant are not mentioned - Appellant is eligible to get refund of the service tax paid on the courier service. As far as technical testing and inspection service is concerned, appellant has failed to satisfy the conditions of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., as they have not been able to produce any written agreement between the buyer and themselves or any statutory rules under which the said testing or inspections were carried out. In view of this position, they are not eligible for getting the refund of service tax paid on the Technical testing and inspection service. In respect of the Customs House Agent Service relating to appellant No. 1, the export invoice number is subsequently mentioned. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of service tax paid on input services including port services, courier service, goods transport agency service, Customs House Agent service, and technical testing & inspection service.

Analysis:
1. Port Services: The appellants, group firms/companies, export foodgrains and dye intermediates using various services. The refund claims for tax paid on input services were rejected due to issues with invoices from Customs House Agents (CHAs) not authorized for terminal operator services in the port area. However, the Tribunal held that CHAs handle goods in the port area using various service providers, making the tax payment valid. Refund allowed.

2. Courier Service: The invoices from courier services lacked the appellant's IEC code and export invoice number, leading to procedural objections. Despite this, the Tribunal considered the details provided in the invoices sufficient, allowing the refund of service tax paid on courier services.

3. Technical Testing & Inspection Service: The appellants failed to produce a written agreement or statutory rules for testing/inspection services, rendering them ineligible for a refund of service tax paid on these services.

4. Customs House Agent Service: For one appellant, objections were raised regarding subsequently mentioned export invoice numbers. The Tribunal deemed these procedural issues and allowed the refund. For the other appellant, invoices before and after a specific date were involved. Refund allowed for invoices post that date, and the matter was remanded for further verification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the refund for port services, courier services, and Customs House Agent services for both appellants, subject to specific conditions. However, the refund for technical testing and inspection services was denied due to the lack of necessary documentation. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of each issue raised and clarifies the eligibility criteria for refund of service tax paid on different input services.