2017 (3) TMI 122 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - various services - rejection on the ground that the services are not port services and non-submission of proof of payment and proper invoices and description of goods not mentioned in invoices - Held that - the grounds of rejection have been found to be untenable - reliance was placed in various decisions Shivam Exports & Ors. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Rejection of service tax paid on services relating to collection of foreign exchanges - rejection on the ground that debit notes/vouchers issued by bank from which it is not evident that services were used for the exported goods - Held that - the service tax was collected by the bank for realization of export proceeds and vouchers were issued by the bank. Therefore, there is no dispute about export of goods and charges collected by the bank for realization of export proceeds. Thus, refund claim is not deniable for the procedural lapses, if any and same should be allowed. Rejection of refund of service tax paid on cleaning/fumigation of containers services - rejection on the ground that condition of exemption notification not fulfilled - Held that - since the appellant is not pressing for refund on this ground, the same is rejected. Rejection of refund of service tax paid on technical testing and analysis services - rejection on the ground that condition of exemption notification not fulfilled - Held that - the consultant is not pressing for the same, therefore, refund is rejected. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants.

Issues Involved:

Denial of refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 on various grounds including non-submission of proper invoices, non-submission of proof of service tax payment, and non-fulfillment of exemption notification conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claims on THC Charges, Bills of Lading Charges, Origin Haulage Charges, and Repo Charges:
The Tribunal examined the rejection of refund claims on these charges, which were not considered under 'port services' as the service providers were registered under different categories and proof of tax deposit under port services was not produced. The Tribunal referenced several decisions, including Shivam Exports & Ors. Vs. CCE, Jaipur, and SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, where such grounds for rejection were found untenable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals on this ground.

2. Non-submission of Proof of Payment of Service Tax on GTA Services:
The rejection of refund claims due to non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services by service providers was also addressed. The Tribunal, aligning with previous decisions, found this ground for rejection to be untenable and allowed the appeals.

3. Proper Invoices Not Submitted (Debit Notes Not Prescribed Documents):
The Tribunal considered the rejection of refund claims due to the submission of debit notes instead of proper invoices. Citing previous rulings, the Tribunal found this ground for rejection invalid and allowed the appeals.

4. Rejection of Service Tax Paid on CHA Services:
Refund claims were rejected on the grounds that the description of goods was not mentioned in the invoices issued by CHA service providers, and details of other expenses were not provided. The Tribunal, referencing prior decisions, found these grounds for rejection untenable and allowed the appeals.

5. Rejection of Service Tax Paid on Courier Services:
The Tribunal addressed the rejection of refund claims on courier services due to the absence of IEC and export invoice numbers on the courier agency's invoices. The Tribunal noted that both pieces of information were available on record and that export could not have occurred without the IEC number. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the refunds on this count.

6. Rejection of Service Tax Paid on Services Relating to Collection of Foreign Exchanges:
The Tribunal examined the rejection of refund claims on services related to the collection of foreign exchanges, where debit notes/vouchers issued by the bank did not clearly show that the services were used for exported goods. The Tribunal found that the charges were related to the realization of export proceeds, as indicated in the bank's debit notes/vouchers, which contained cross-references to shipping bills. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the refund claims, dismissing the procedural lapses.

7. Rejection of Refund of Service Tax Paid on Cleaning/Fumigation of Containers Services:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not pressing for the refund claim on cleaning/fumigation services due to non-fulfillment of exemption notification conditions. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the refund claims on this ground.

8. Rejection of Refund of Service Tax Paid on Technical Testing and Analysis Services:
Similarly, the Tribunal observed that the appellant was not pressing for the refund claim on technical testing and analysis services due to non-fulfillment of exemption notification conditions. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the refund claims on this ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals partly, granting refunds for issues covered by previous CESTAT orders and dismissing claims where appellants were not pressing the issue. The appeals were thus partly allowed in the terms discussed.

← Previous Next →