2016 (11) TMI 1752 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - case of petitioner is that invoices produced by them in respect of detention charges which are for storage and warehousing of the goods are not cleared and does not establish that the same are for the detention charges - HELD THAT - In as much as the legal issue is decided in favour of the assessee the impugned orders in both the cases is set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for examination of the documents. As the refund claim is involved we expect the adjudicating authority to do the needful as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Both the appeals are disposed of in above manner. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund of service tax on terminal handling charges, detention charges, and charges on transportation of empty containers for export

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT DELHI, the issue at hand pertains to the refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges, detention charges, and charges on transportation of empty containers used for export of goods. The tribunal noted that this issue has been previously addressed in various cases, including SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I, M/s. Shivam Exports, M/s. Mecshot Blasting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, M/s. Suncity Art Exporters and others, Vippy Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Indore, Faizan Shoes Pvt Ltd vs CST, Chennai, CCE, Surat vs. ABG Shipyard Ltd., Sunita Hydrocolloids Pvt Ltd. & Ors., Satyam Enterprises (Unit-I), Jodhpur, Shrinath Gum & Chemicals, and Jainson (India) Industries. The advocate representing the applicants argued that the invoices presented by them for detention charges were for storage and warehousing of goods, contrary to the findings of the lower authorities. The tribunal, ruling in favor of the assessee, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further examination of the documents. Given the involvement of a refund claim, the tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to expedite the process, ideally within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.