2016 (7) TMI 47 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax on services used for export of goods - Notification No. 41/2007-ST - Held that - Following the precedents laid down by the CESTAT orders, referred to above and in view of ld. Consultant s concession, the appeal is allowed in the following terms (i) Claim of ₹ 8,464/- pertaining to six shipping bills is held to be time-barred. - (ii) The refund claim relating to cleaning activity and technical inspection certification service is held to be inadmissible. - (iii) The remaining amount out of the impugned refund is held to be admissible. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of service tax refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008.

Analysis:
1. Refund Rejection Grounds (i) to (iv): The appellant's refund claim was rejected based on various grounds, including charges not covered under Port services, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services, improper invoices, and lack of details in CHA services invoices. The appellant argued that similar grounds were found untenable in previous CESTAT orders. The LD. Consultant cited specific cases where such grounds were overruled, leading to the conclusion that the rejection based on these grounds was incorrect.

2. Refund Rejection Grounds (v) and (vi): The rejection of the refund related to cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services was also contested. The LD. Consultant did not press for the refund in these cases, acknowledging the inadmissibility of the claims. The rejection was upheld, aligning with the LD. Consultant's concession and the legal provisions regarding these specific services.

3. Admission by LD. DR: The LD. DR admitted that the issues raised in grounds (i) to (iv) were addressed in previous CESTAT orders, indicating a precedent for overruling the rejection based on these grounds. This admission further supported the appellant's argument against the rejection of the refund claim.

4. Final Decision: Considering the arguments presented by both sides and the precedents set by previous CESTAT orders, the Tribunal allowed the appeal partially. The Tribunal held that the claim amounting to &8377; 8,464/- for six shipping bills was time-barred. Additionally, the refund claims related to cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services were deemed inadmissible. However, the remaining amount of the refund was considered admissible, indicating a partial success for the appellant in challenging the rejection of the service tax refund.