2016 (1) TMI 259 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - services used for export of goods - Notification No. 41/2007-ST - General Insurance Service, Goods Transport Agency Service, Port Service (Terminal Handling Charges), Custom House Agent Service, Technical Certification & Inspection Service and Storage & Warehousing Service. - nexus of input services on which refund was sought for - Held that - one or other documents either on the basis of reference of documents or identity of the goods, it clearly establish the correlation between the input services and export goods, if that is so, then this procedural condition even if not complied with scrupulously, refund cannot be rejected. The conditions prescribed in the Notification are directory and not mandatory. Moreover from all the conditions, it clearly appears that such conditions are only to ascertain the nexus between the services and export goods. If, with other corroborative documents, the same purpose is served as mention in the Conditions, the refund should be allowed. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded only on the ground that conditions prescribed in the Notification were not complied with, but he has not verified other corroborative documents by which nexus is otherwise established. - matter remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to pass a denovo adjudication order considering our above observations.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for various services - Port Service, Insurance Service, Goods Transport Agency Service, Custom House Agent Service, Technical Certification & Inspection Service, and Storage & Warehousing Service.

Port Service (Terminal Handling Charges):
The appellant's refund claim for Port Service was rejected on the basis that the invoices were not issued by the Port Authority directly to the appellant, but by a Custom House Agent (CHA). The Ld. Counsel argued that the billing pattern is common practice and the service itself remains Terminal Handling Charges, thus eligible for refund. The Tribunal disagreed with the rejection solely based on invoice issuance, emphasizing the need for verification of service tax payment on the port services.

Insurance Service:
The rejection of the refund claim for Insurance Service, specifically Spot Insurance, was due to the lack of correlation between export cargo and the insurance policy. The appellant argued that the lot numbers assigned to export goods in the godown can establish this correlation, supported by documents specific to export goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the direct correlation and directed verification of documents for reconsideration.

Goods Transport Agency Service:
The rejection of the refund claim for Goods Transport Agency Service was based on the absence of exporter invoice details in the lorry receipt. The Ld. Counsel contended that despite procedural lapses, the correlation with export goods is evident from other details, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal agreed that the nexus could be established from other details and remanded for verification.

Custom House Agent Service:
The refund claim for Custom House Agent Service was denied due to non-compliance with conditions like missing shipping bill details on invoices. The Ld. Counsel argued that the correlation with export goods can be established through other documents, warranting refund approval. The Tribunal found procedural conditions as directory and remanded for reconsideration based on nexus establishment.

Technical Certification & Inspection Service:
The appellant withdrew the claim for this service. Hence, no further analysis was conducted on this issue in the judgment.

Storage & Warehousing Service:
Refund rejection for Storage & Warehousing Service was based on non-fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The Ld. Counsel argued that the service was exclusively for export goods, and nexus could be established through various documents, urging refund approval. The Tribunal found procedural conditions as not mandatory, emphasizing the need for verification of nexus-establishing documents and remanded for reconsideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for denovo adjudication considering the established nexus between the services and export goods through corroborative documents. The judgment highlighted the importance of verifying payment details, establishing correlations, and considering procedural conditions as directory rather than mandatory for refund eligibility.