2016 (8) TMI 1028 - AT - Service Tax

Refund 100% EOU manufacture and export of marble and granite slabs Notification No.41/07-ST dated 06.10.2007 port service Held that - the CBEC vide Circular dated 26.02.2010 has interalia clarified that irrespective of the clarification of service provided by the service provider, if the same relates to the services provided in the port, the same shall be considered for benefit of refund in terms of the Notification dated 06.10.2007. The services received by the appellant have in-fact been provided within the port refund available. CHA service Held that - the service providers are duly recognized by the Customs authorities for providing such service which is evident from certificates issued in favour of the service provider by the Customs Department refund available. GTA service non-compliance with the requirement of the notification read with the circular Held that - there is co-relation between the goods removed from the factory to the port of export. Thus, even if, some of the condition of the Notification have not been complied with, such condition should be considered as procedural, for which the substantive right of the appellant to claim the benefit of refund as an exporter should not be disallowed refund available. Appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application denial under Notification No.41/07-ST for port service, CHA service, and GTA service compliance.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II, denying a refund application under Notification No.41/07-ST for port service, CHA service, and GTA service. The appellant, a 100% E.O.U. engaged in manufacturing and exporting marble and granite slabs, filed the refund application for goods exported from April to June, 2008. The appellant's submission included details like shipping bill, bill of lading, and service provider names to demonstrate compliance with export requirements. The appellant argued that even if the services provided fall under Business Auxiliary Service, they should qualify as port services for refund purposes based on a CBEC Circular. The appellant also contended that CHA services and GTA services were eligible for refund citing relevant judgments.

The appellant's advocate referenced Circulars and judgments to support the claim that services provided within the port area should qualify as port services for refund purposes. The advocate argued that CHA services should be eligible for refund as the service providers were registered with Customs House. Regarding GTA services, the appellant stated that goods were directly removed from the factory to the port of export, fulfilling the Notification conditions. The appellant relied on judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal to support their arguments.

On the other hand, the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that since the conditions of the Notification were not entirely met, the appellant should not receive the benefits contained therein. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal analyzed the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, which provides for the refund of service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting goods. The Tribunal found that services received by the appellant within the port area qualified for the refund under the Notification. Additionally, CHA services were deemed eligible for refund as the service providers were recognized by Customs authorities. While the appellant did not fully comply with Notification requirements for GTA services, the Tribunal considered the non-compliance as procedural and allowed the refund claim as the substantive right of the appellant as an exporter should not be denied.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for a refund of service tax paid on taxable services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.