2016 (6) TMI 516 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of Service tax refund - Refund claim on THS charges bills of lading charges origin haulage charges repo charges rejected on the grounds that same are not covered under Port Services as the service providers are registered under different category and proof of deposition of tax under port services was not produced - CHA Services as per OIO and description of goods not mentioned in the invoices issued by CHA. Held that - the issue has been settled vide CESTAT judgments 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 M/s SRF Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-I 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 . Refund of Service tax - Cleaning activity technical inspection and certification service - Held that - appellant did not pressed this point therefore refund is not allowed. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of service tax refund on various charges under Port Services.
2. Rejection of refund on cleaning activity due to non-compliance with Notification conditions.
3. Rejection of refund on CHA Services for lack of details in invoices.
4. Rejection of refund on technical inspection and certification service.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a service tax refund amounting to ?73,061 for the period 1.10.2008 to 31.12.2008. The grounds for rejection included charges not covered under Port Services due to service providers being registered under a different category and lack of proof of tax deposition under port services.

2. The cleaning activity refund was denied as the service provider was not an accredited agency as required by the Notification conditions. The appellant did not press for this refund during the hearing.

3. Refund on CHA Services was rejected due to missing details in the invoices, specifically the description of goods and other expenses. However, the issue was resolved based on previous CESTAT judgments, allowing the refund related to this point.

4. The refund for service tax paid on technical inspection and certification services was also rejected initially but was not pressed by the appellant during the hearing. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the rejection of refunds related to points (i) and (iii) while disallowing refunds for cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with Notification conditions and providing necessary details in invoices to claim service tax refunds successfully. The decision was based on precedents set by previous CESTAT judgments, ensuring consistency in the interpretation and application of tax laws.