2016 (8) TMI 546 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax split up charges for above services not available - terminal handling charges authorization of service provider to provide port services - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06/01/2007 - Held that - when the service involved was in connection with the export of goods and the service tax has been discharged refund cannot be denied on the ground that the person who provided service should have authorization from the port and evidence to that effect should be produced. Transportation of containers from and to the port of export shipment the transport of empty containers from port to factory Held that - the expression in relation to transport of export goods used in the notification is wide enough to cover transport of empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing goods for export purpose. Appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and transportation of containers for export shipment.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a claim for refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and transportation of containers for export shipment. The claim was rejected on the grounds that the appellant failed to establish the authorization of the service provider for 'port services' and that the transport of empty containers from port to the factory was not admissible. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that these issues had been settled in various Tribunal orders and in the appellant's own case.

The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the lower Authorities.

After hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal referred to various precedents to settle the eligibility of refund of service tax on the two accounts. In the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, it was held that refund cannot be denied on the ground that the service provider should have authorization from the port. The Tribunal also referred to Board's Circular while arriving at the decision. Additionally, in the case of CCE & ST, Visakhapatnam vs. R.A.K. Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., it was held that the expression "in relation to transport of export goods" in the notification covers transport of empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing goods for export purpose. Similar views were taken in other cases as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the impugned order could not be sustained and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.