2016 (8) TMI 947 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim 100% EOU - the notification number 41/2007-ST terminal handling charges bill of lading charges inland haulage services transportation of empty containers from the port area to the factory Held that - All these services have been the subject matter of the one or the other decisions of the Tribunal and stands covered by the said decisions by holding that they are all port services and as such being specified services are covered by the notification in question refund allowed lower authorities to re-quantify the amount. Courier services cleaning services Held that - these services not covered by the said notification refund denied. Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim of service tax for specified services under notification 41/2007-ST; Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities; Identification of services eligible for refund; Disputed services not covered by the notification.

Analysis:

1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi pertains to three appeals with identical issues regarding the refund claim of service tax paid on specific services utilized for exporting goods under notification 41/2007-ST. The lower authorities had denied the refund claim citing that the services were not specified under the said notification.

2. The services for which the refund was sought included terminal handling charges, bill of lading charges, inland haulage services, and transportation of empty containers. The Tribunal found that these services had been previously addressed in various decisions, confirming them as port services covered by the notification in question.

3. The Tribunal referred to several past decisions, such as SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur-I and Shivan Exports, among others, to support their conclusion that the services claimed by the appellants were indeed covered under the specified services listed in the notification.

4. While the Departmental Representative (DR) acknowledged that the disputed services were covered by previous judgments favoring the assessee, they contended that courier and cleaning services were not included in the notification. The advocate representing the appellants agreed not to contest the denial of refund for these two services.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that all services, except courier and cleaning services, were eligible for the refund of service tax paid under notification 41/2007-ST. The lower authorities were directed to recalculate the refund amounts accordingly.

6. The judgment concluded by disposing of all three appeals in the aforementioned manner, emphasizing the entitlement of the appellants to the refund for the specified services in compliance with the notification.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, relevant legal references, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi.