9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 616 - AT - Service TaxDenial of refund claim - refund under notification no. 40/2007-ST or 41/2007-ST - terminal handling charges - GTA service - Held that - Regarding the amount of ₹ 80865/-, we find that the sample invoices produced by the appellant show the service tax having been paid under business support service which is not a service covered under notification no. 40/2001-ST or 41/2007-ST dated 6/10/2007. Further, the contention that notification no. 41/2007-S.T. should be given effect from 7/9/2007 when notification no. 40/2007-ST was issued is totally untenable as there is nothing in notification no. 41/2007-ST which would even suggest that it has any retrospective applicability. Consequently, the refund pertaining to Insurance Service is not admissible. The appellant itself has admitted that an amount of ₹ 5976/- was the service tax relating to handling charges and not in relation to freight charges, and therefore, even this amount is not admissible for refund under any of the two notifications. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Assessee.
Issues: Refund of service tax under specific notifications.
Analysis: The appeal in question was filed against an order rejecting a refund claim of service tax amounting to Rs. 92135 under specific notifications. The appellant argued that the service tax paid on terminal handling charges at the port should be covered under port service. Additionally, they claimed that certain amounts were denied refund erroneously. The Tribunal examined the contentions presented by the appellant. Regarding the amount of Rs. 80865 paid on terminal handling charges, the Tribunal found that the invoices provided by the appellant indicated payment under business support service, not covered under the relevant notifications. The argument that a specific notification should have retrospective effect was deemed baseless as there was no provision for such applicability. Consequently, the refund related to insurance service was deemed inadmissible. The appellant's acknowledgment that a portion of the amount was for handling charges, not freight charges, rendered it ineligible for refund under the notifications. In conclusion, after thorough analysis, the Tribunal found no defects in the impugned order and rejected the appeal.
|
