2016 (10) TMI 963 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.07 - export of goods - terminal handling charges - Bills of lading service - Denial on the ground that the documents issued in respect of services relating to activities at the port of export have not been issued by the port or any person authorized by the port and that the documents being debit notes refund is not admissible - Held that - the issue stand decided in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CCE 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that appellants are entitled to refund of service tax paid on such services. Courier services - IEC code not mentioned - Held that - The said defect is rectifiable defect and infact stand rectified by the appellant - appellant to be entitled to the refund claim. GTA services - lorry receipts not establishing the co-relation with the exported goods - Held that - the containers mentioned in the lorry receipt itself are the one which were ultimately exported and this fact can be established so as to prove that the said GTA services were received by the appellant for the export of the goods - refund allowed. Matter remanded to the original authority for examining the documentary evidence - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and Bills of lading service for export of goods.
2. Rejection of refund claim for courier services due to missing IEC code.
3. Disputed refund claim for GTA services due to lack of correlation between lorry receipts and exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The issue before the tribunal pertained to the refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and Bills of lading service utilized for exporting goods. The lower authorities had denied the refund, citing that these services did not fall under port services. However, the tribunal referred to precedents like SRF Ltd. vs. CCE and M/s. Shivam Exports vs. CCE Jaipur, which had settled the issue in favor of granting a refund. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a refund for the service tax paid on such services.

2. A part of the refund claim related to courier services was rejected because the appellant's IEC code number was not mentioned. The tribunal noted that this was a rectifiable defect, which the appellant had already rectified. Therefore, the tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to this portion of the refund claim.

3. The disputed part of the refund claim involved GTA services utilized by the assessee. While the legal issue regarding these GTA services under notification No. 41/2007 was not in question, the authorities rejected the refund on the basis that the lorry receipts did not establish a correlation with the exported goods. The appellant's advocate argued that the containers mentioned in the lorry receipt were the ones ultimately exported, indicating a connection between the GTA services and the exported goods. In light of this submission, the tribunal set aside this part of the order and remanded the matter to the original authority for further examination of the documentary evidence.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal and partially remanded the case for further review based on the specific issues discussed and the evidence presented during the proceedings.