2017 (2) TMI 623 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 17/2009-ST - denial on the ground of original invoices with certification not submitted; Bill of Lading charges, THC were not covered under the category of Port services; refund claim in respect of certain shipping bills is less than ₹ 500/-; in case of freight, service tax is to be paid by exporter etc. - Held that - the service was transportation of goods by rail service. The invoice issued by CONCOR clearly shows the payment of service tax made by them. Accordingly, the payment of service tax refund on such cases is allowable to the appellant. Refund claim in respect of certain shipping bills is less than ₹ 500/- - Held that - The impugned refund claim has been disallowed in all cases where service tax refund is less than ₹ 500/- in respect of each shipping bill. This is clearly a wrong interpretation of Para 2(h) of the relevant notification. Since the total service tax refund claim is much more than ₹ 500/-, rejecting the refund in each case is not called for. Certain services not covered under port services - Held that - The various services for which the refund has been denied are rendered within the Port and hence, may be considered as Port services which are listed in the relevant notification for sanction of refund of service tax - refund is allowable in respect of the services under category of Port services. Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 17/2009-ST for service tax paid on specified services availed for export of goods; denial based on procedural lapses, freight charges, claims less than ?500, services not covered under port services, limitation period.

Analysis:

1. Procedural Lapses in Certification:
The appellant's refund claim was initially rejected due to the procedural lapse in certifying each invoice as required by the notification. However, the appellant submitted a consolidated certification for the entire refund claim. The appellant's counsel argued that the refund claims should not be denied for technical lapses and offered to certify the original invoices if given the opportunity. The Tribunal accepted this argument and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to allow the appellant to rectify any deficiencies in certification.

2. Denial of Refund on Freight Charges:
The refund claim for service tax paid on freight charges was denied due to a clerical mistake in the description and classification of services. The appellant contended that the refund pertained to transportation of goods by rail service, for which the service tax is to be paid by the service provider. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and allowed the refund based on invoices issued by the service provider, which clearly showed the payment of service tax by them.

3. Claims Less than ?500:
The refund claims for certain shipping bills were rejected as the service tax refund was less than ?500 for each bill. The appellant argued that the total refund claim amount should be considered, not individual services. The Tribunal agreed, stating that rejecting the refund for each bill when the total claim exceeded ?500 was an incorrect interpretation of the relevant notification.

4. Refund Denial for Services Not Covered Under Port Services:
The refund claim was rejected for services like Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Service, Express release fees, and Bill of Lading charges on the ground that they were not covered under port services. The appellant cited several case laws to support their argument that these services should be considered as port services. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the services rendered within the port should be considered as port services eligible for service tax refund.

5. Refund Claim Beyond Limitation Period:
A part of the refund claim was rejected as it was beyond the period of limitation. The appellant's counsel acknowledged this and did not press for the refund of cases fully beyond the specified time limit. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal based on the above considerations.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the appeal and the Tribunal's decisions on each issue, providing a detailed understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes.