2016 (6) TMI 474 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-ST - Transportation of goods from factory to ICD and from ICD to Port - documents evidencing payment of Service like debit notes, invoices, Bank statement etc. submitted by appellant - Held that - the service tax paid for transport of goods from the factory to ICD, it is seen that Notification 41/2007 did not cover the same for the purpose of refund and therefore refund thereof is not admissible. The transportation of the goods between the ICD and the port was clearly covered as a specified service under Notification 41/2007-ST. The remaining issues relating to debit notes and invoices are also covered in favour of the appellant vide the Judgments of CESTAT in the case of 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 , SRF Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/s Suncity Art Exporters Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur- II 2014 (11) TMI 251 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Service Tax refund denial under Notification No. 41/2007-ST based on improper documents and non-admissible services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal denying a Service Tax refund of ?1,60,126 under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The refund was disallowed due to improper documents and non-admissible services. The appellant did not appear, but it was noted that the refund was rejected because the submitted documents did not comply with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and lacked essential details like the name of the service provider and date of invoice. Additionally, certain services for which the tax was paid were deemed non-admissible under the notification.

The appellant argued that the necessary documents were provided, including debit notes with essential details. They clarified that certain charges were for transportation services, and the bank statement contained required information. The Tribunal considered the appellant's contentions and referenced judgments favoring the appellant in similar cases involving debit notes. However, it was observed that the refund for transport from the factory to ICD was not covered under Notification 41/2007 for refund, while transport between ICD and the port was eligible. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant based on previous CESTAT judgments.

Conclusively, the appeal was partly allowed, with the refund for internal haulage charges between the factory and ICD deemed inadmissible, while the rest of the refund was granted to the appellant. The decision was pronounced in the open court, settling the matter partially in favor of the appellant.