2017 (3) TMI 1509 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - debit note/expense voucher - Whether the refund can be sanctioned on the basis of debit note submitted by the appellants? - Held that - In the CBEC clarification dt. 11.12.2008 (supra) issued to streamline procedures for such refunds, it was clarified that Invoices/Challans/Bills issued by the supplier of taxable services in conformity with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 are reasonable evidences - reliance placed in the case of M/s Shivam Exports & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that so long as the documents (debit notes) reveal the essential details like registration no, service provided, service recipient, value of taxable service, refund cannot be rejected (merely because the documents are debit notes). Whether refund of Terminal Handling charges paid by the appellants in terms of N/N. 41/2007-ST prior to 07.07.2009 can be allowed? - While the Commissioner acknowledges in his order that service of Terminal Handling are provided for export of goods at the port, he has rejected the refund stating that the same was not specifically included in the list of eligible services - Held that - this particular issue has been decided by this Tribunal in their favour in their own case in Nahar Fibres Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2013 (12) TMI 330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where By reference to the exemption provided at Sl. No. 16 of the table in N/N. 17/2009-ST, the adjudicating authority inferred; and in the considered view of this Tribunal erroneously, that terminal handling charges when provided within the port do not fall under port services vide the N/N. 41/2007-ST. This conclusion of the adjudicating authority which found resonance in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), is in my considered view erroneous and proceeds on a fallacious interpretation of the provisions of N/N. 41/2007-ST - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund can be sanctioned based on the debit note submitted by the appellants.
2. Whether the refund of Terminal Handling charges paid by the appellants can be allowed.

Issue (i) - Debit Note Refund:
The appeal challenges the rejection of a service tax refund by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II. The appellants sought a refund under Notification 41/2007-ST, which was partially granted by the Assistant Commissioner but further rejected in revision proceedings. The Ld. Advocate argued that the debit notes submitted contain essential details as required by Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Citing the case law of M/s Shivam Exports & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur, it was contended that as long as the documents reveal necessary information, refund cannot be denied merely because they are debit notes. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, stating that the objection raised by the Commissioner was unsustainable. The decision of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore was deemed inapplicable as it pertained to Cenvat Credit, not the refund under Notification No. 41/2007.

Issue (ii) - Terminal Handling Charges Refund:
Regarding the refund of Terminal Handling charges, the Commissioner rejected the claim as these charges were not specifically included in the list of eligible services under the relevant Notification during the period in question. However, the Tribunal referenced a previous case, Nahar Fibres Vs. CCE, Chandigarh, where it was held that services related to port services provided for export are exempt from service tax under the relevant Notification. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's rejection of the refund based on the absence of Terminal Handling Charges in the Notification was erroneous. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal framework under consideration, and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding in favor of the appellants on both issues raised in the appeal.