2016 (2) TMI 259 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - input services - duty paying documents - improper invoices not being in the proper form as per the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rule 1994 as they did not contain complete details - Held that - so long as the documents (debit notes) reveal the essential details like registration no service provided, service recipient, value of taxable service, refund cannot be rejected merely because the documents are debit notes. Refund of service tax paid on THC Charges, REPO Charges, BL charges, DDC Charges and hollage charges is admissible in as much as the same are the port services. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund rejection under notification no. 41/2007-ST for various services like THC, business support, BL charges, etc. based on improper invoices and non-submission of proof of service tax payment.

Analysis:
1. Refund Rejection Summary:
- Appeals filed against orders upholding rejection of refunds under notification no. 41/2007-ST.
- Refunds rejected for M/s. Shivam Exports, Mecshot Blasting Equipment, and M/s. Shree Ram Industries.
- Grounds of rejection included services not covered under Port Services, non-submission of proof of service tax payment on GTA services, and improper debit notes.

2. Appellant's Contentions:
- Appellant claimed refund for service tax on various services but faced rejection due to improper invoices lacking complete details.
- Contended that services are covered under port services as per CBEC clarifications and circulars.
- Cited judgments supporting their claim, including cases like SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur-I and CST Ahmedabad Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd.

3. Department's Argument and Tribunal's Analysis:
- Department referred to the judgment in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills.
- Tribunal analyzed notification no. 41/2007-ST, stating the onus is on the exporter to prove service tax payment.
- Referred to judgments like SRF Ltd. and Adani Enterprises Ltd. supporting refund claims for various charges related to port services.
- Held that procedural aspects should not be a reason for rejecting refund claims.

4. Judicial Pronouncements and Conclusion:
- Tribunal considered various judicial pronouncements, including cases like M/s. Nahar Fibres and M/s. Suncity Art Exporters.
- Concluded that impugned orders were not sustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeals.
- Emphasized that services related to port services are exempt from service tax under notification no. 41/2007-ST based on legal interpretations and precedents.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and legal interpretations in refund claims under service tax notifications, providing clarity on the admissibility of refunds for services related to port operations based on established legal principles and precedents.