2016 (12) TMI 1066 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST - denial on the ground that the services do not fall under the category of port services - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the assessee would be entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the said services - refund allowed. Denial also on the ground that the appellant have not submitted proper invoices and have only produced debit notes - Held that - the said debit notes would be admissible documents for the purpose of refund. Denial also on the ground that no proof of the payment of the same by the service provider to the Revenue stands produced - Held that - the decision relied upon also takes this issue into account and refund is allowed on this part. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under notification number 41/2007-ST for various charges; Entitlement to refund claim; Rejection of refund claim based on services not falling under the category of port services; Submission of proper invoices for refund; Proof of payment by service provider to Revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dealt with a refund claim under notification number 41/2007-ST for charges including THC charges, bill of lading charges, origin haulage charges, repo charges, CHA services, and transportation of empty containers from port to factory charges. The claim was rejected on the basis that these charges did not fall under the category of port services specified in the notification, leading to a dispute regarding the entitlement to the refund claim. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including those of SRF Ltd., M/s. Shivam Exports, Vippy Industries Ltd., and others, to establish that the assessee should be entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the mentioned services.

Another issue addressed in the judgment was the denial of refund due to the appellant's submission of debit notes instead of proper invoices. The Tribunal clarified that the earlier decisions had deemed debit notes as admissible documents for the purpose of refund, thereby rejecting the ground for denial based on the nature of the documents submitted.

Furthermore, the denial of refund was also based on the lack of proof regarding the payment of charges by the service provider to the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that previous decisions had considered and disagreed with this contention of the Revenue, indicating that such proof was not a prerequisite for the refund claim.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded all the appeals for the grant of refund wherever held admissible, concluding the disposal of all appeals in this manner. The judgment emphasized the established principles from previous decisions to support the entitlement to the refund claim and the admissibility of debit notes as proof for refund purposes.