2017 (6) TMI 474 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time bar - N/N. 41/2007 ST dated 06/10/2017 - Held that - the matter is covered by Tribunal s decision in case of CCE Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports 2015 (11) TMI 1112 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that it is settled principle as to Rules and Notifications are issued from to time to supplement the provisions of main Act and grant of relief of refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods has to be sanctioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled - refund allowed. Refund claim also rejected on the ground that input services pertaining to terminal handling charges wharfage charges loading unloading and technical testing and analysis are not specified in the N/N. 41/2007 - Held that - matter is covered by the Tribunal s decision in case of Angiplast Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE 2012 (10) TMI 913 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that Since there is no dispute nor there is any record or observation to show that service tax was not paid under the category of Port Service for Terminal Handling Charges and Port Services admittedly are notified in the N/N. 41/2007-ST refund is admissible. The appellant is entitled to the refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 ST.
2. Rejection of refund for specific input services not specified in the notification.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Ruchi Soya Industries, appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 ST for service tax paid on input services used in goods export. The main grounds were the claim being time-barred and services not specified in the notification. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, CCE Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports, where it was held that refund claims must adhere to the time limit set by the notification. However, the Tribunal emphasized that if conditions are met, the refund should be granted. In the case of Raymond Ltd., it was established that filing within the extended period allowed by an amendment makes the claim valid. The Tribunal remanded the case to verify if all conditions were met, disregarding the time-bar issue.

2. Regarding the rejection of refund for specific input services like terminal handling charges, wharfage charges, loading/unloading, and technical testing and analysis, the Tribunal cited precedents like Angiplast Pvt Ltd and Ruchi Soya Industries Vs CCE, Indore. In the case of Angiplast Pvt Ltd, it was clarified that even if a service was not explicitly mentioned earlier, if it falls under a notified category and service tax was paid, the refund is admissible. Similarly, in Ruchi Soya Industries' case, the Tribunal upheld the refund for technical testing and analysis services, loading/unloading services, and wharfage charges as they were paid under specified categories. The Tribunal emphasized that if services were rendered within a port and paid by an authorized service provider, they should be considered port services under the notification, as established in Commissioner of C.Ex., Indore v. SurajImpex (India) Pvt. Ltd.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved.