9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1748 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - services used for export of goods - agency charges - ground rent - weighment wharfage charges - denial on the ground that these services are not specifically included in N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 6.7.2009 and also on the ground that appellant has failed to produce Chartered Accountant s certificate required under the notification - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that various services rendered within the port are to be considered as port service which finds mention in the Notification No. 41/2007 dated 6.10.2007 as well as 17/2009 dated 6.7.2009 - Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S SRF LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., JAIPUR-I 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/S. SHIVAM EXPORTS, M/S. MECSHOT BLASTING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD. AND M/S. SHREE RAM INDUSTRIES VERSUS CCE JAIPUR 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - the refund claims are allowed in respect of these services except GTA services. GTA Services - HELD THAT - The appellant has submitted that they are in possession of documentary evidence regarding payment of service tax as well as to correlate such payment to the shipping bills under which the goods have been exported - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification of such claims. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
Issues:
Refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2009-ST for services used for export of goods, denial of refund for agency charges, ground rent, weighment & wharfage charges, disallowance of service tax paid on GTA, failure to produce Chartered Accountant's certificate, rejection of refund claim due to lack of documents correlating service tax paid with export of goods. Analysis: The appellant filed a claim for refund of service tax paid on services used for exporting goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. Both lower authorities denied the refund for agency charges, ground rent, weighment & wharfage charges, and GTA service tax, citing reasons such as services not being specifically included in the notification and lack of Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim as the appellant failed to produce documents correlating service tax paid with export of goods through shipping bills. The appellant argued that services like agency charges, ground rent, weighment & wharfage charges, though not specified in the notification, fall under the description of 'port services' in the relevant notification. The Counsel referenced Tribunal decisions where refund for similar services within the port was allowed. Regarding the denied GTA service tax refund, the appellant claimed to possess documentary proof establishing correlation between goods export and service tax paid on GTA service, requesting a remand for verification. The Tribunal acknowledged settled precedents indicating that services rendered within the port are considered as port services under relevant notifications. Refund claims for such services were allowed based on previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal ordered refund of service tax for services within the port and remanded the issue of GTA service tax refund to the original authority for verification of documentary evidence provided by the appellant. The appellant was granted the opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of their claim, with a directive to finalize the issue within two months from the order date.
|
