2016 (9) TMI 1060 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - THC, MT TSC, Documentation Charges, Handling Charges - whether to be covered under port service as the service provider are registered under different category of services and proof of deposition of tax under port service not produced - Held that - in the case of Adani Enterprises 2014 (11) TMI 973 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , the Hon ble Gujarat High Court have held that different services provided within the port shall merit consideration for refund in terms of Notification 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. We find that the CBEC vide Circular dated 26.02.2010 has clarified that irrespective of the classification of service provided by the service provider, if the services are related to port service, the same shall be considered for benefit of refund in terms of the Notification dated 06.10.2007. Refund claim - service tax paid on freight for transportation of goods from ICD to Port of export - Held that - we find that such service specifically covered under serial No. 6 in the schedule appended to the Notification dated 06.10.2007. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any specific findings in disallowing the cenvat benefit on this account. Therefore, the refund is allowed. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims on various charges under port service.
2. Denial of refund on freight from ICD to Port of export.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the rejection of refund claims on THC, MT TSC, Documentation Charges, and Handling Charges under port service. The appellant argued that the rejection was not valid based on a CBEC Circular dated 26.02.2010 and a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Adani Enterprises. The Circular clarified that services related to port service, even if provided by service providers registered under different categories, are eligible for refund. The court held that different services within the port should be considered for a refund, as per the Notification referred to. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claims on these grounds was deemed unjustified.

2. The second issue revolves around the denial of refund on freight for transporting goods from ICD to the port of export. The appellant contended that the schedule appended to Notification 41/2007-ST permitted such transportation for the benefit of a refund. It was noted that although this submission was made to the authorities earlier, no specific findings were recorded in their orders. The Tribunal found that the service of transporting goods from ICD to the port of export falls under serial No. 6 in the schedule mentioned in the Notification. Additionally, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide specific reasons for disallowing the cenvat benefit on this account. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the refund on this basis lacked merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering various services within the port for refund eligibility and clarified that services related to port service, regardless of the service provider's classification, should be considered for the benefit of a refund as per the relevant Notification.