2016 (7) TMI 601 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of cenvat credit / input tax on export of goods - Refund claim on THC 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 not produced. - GTA services. - CHA Services - Cleaning activit - courier service - Held that - Regarding rejection of refund of service tax paid on courier services and cleaning activity, the Ld. Consultant is not pressing this point. We find that consultant is right in claiming that the issues mentioned at Sr. No. (i) (ii), (iii) & (iv) are indeed covered in assessees favour by the aforementioned CESTAT judgments. Following the precedents, we partly allow the appeal to the extent that the refund rejected on grounds mentioned at serial no. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above is allowed but refund relating to courier service and cleaning service is disallowed. Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Rejection of service tax refund on various charges under Port Services.
2. Non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services.
3. Non-submission of proper invoice.
4. Description of goods not mentioned in CHA services invoices.
5. Rejection of refund on courier services.
6. Cleaning activity not meeting Notification conditions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of a service tax refund of &8377; 76,165 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The rejection was based on multiple grounds, including charges not covered under Port Services, lack of proof of tax deposition, non-submission of proof of service tax payment on GTA services, and improper invoices. The appellant argued that previous CESTAT judgments favored their position on the rejection grounds (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). The Tribunal, following the precedents, partly allowed the appeal for the refund rejected on these grounds, while denying refunds related to courier and cleaning services.

2. The rejection of the service tax refund on GTA services was due to the non-submission of proof of payment. However, the appellant successfully argued that previous CESTAT judgments supported their position on this issue, leading the Tribunal to allow the appeal partially based on these precedents.

3. The rejection based on improper invoices, specifically the absence of prescribed documents like debit notes, was challenged by the appellant citing favorable CESTAT judgments. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and allowed the appeal partially, in line with the previous decisions.

4. Regarding the description of goods not mentioned in the CHA services invoices and the lack of details on other expenses, the appellant relied on previous judgments to support their case. The Tribunal, following the established precedents, allowed the appeal partially on these grounds.

5. The rejection of the refund related to courier services was not contested by the appellant, leading to the Tribunal disallowing the refund on this specific issue.

6. The rejection of the refund for cleaning activity was also not pressed by the appellant. The Tribunal noted this and proceeded to disallow the refund related to cleaning services as it did not meet the conditions specified in the Notification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the grounds of rejection, the arguments presented by the appellant, the relevant CESTAT judgments, and the final decision of the Tribunal on each issue involved in the appeal.

← Previous Next →