2017 (6) TMI 948 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Inland Haulage Charges - denial on the ground that the service in question is Business Support Service and is therefore not covered by the Board N/N. 17/2009-ST dt. 09.07.2009 - Held that - the services were provided by CHA to the appellant when they exported the goods under the aforesaid shipping bills - services were provided by the CHA in relation to exports on which there is no dispute and the CHA services are covered under Sr. No. 11 which reads service provided by a CHA in relation to export goods exported by the exporter - the original authority has to scrutinize the refund claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claims related to services provided by CHA to exporter and transport of export goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST.

Analysis:
The appellants, a manufacturer of excisable goods, filed refund claims for services provided by CHA and transport of export goods. The claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The main contention was regarding the Inland Haulage Charges, with the appellants intending to contest these claims while not contesting the smaller amounts. The Revenue classified the charges as Business Support Services based on a CBEC Circular, which the appellants disputed citing a previous Tribunal order.

The Ld. Advocate argued that the Circular applied to postal mails and was not correct for qualifying for a refund. The Ld. AR for the Revenue maintained that the service was Business Support Service not covered by the Notification. The Tribunal noted that show cause notices were issued based on the classification of Inland Haulage Charges as Business Support Service, which was not specified in the Notification. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reclassified the services at the end of the recipient, which was deemed incorrect based on previous Tribunal decisions. The services provided by the CHA were related to exports and covered under the specified service category.

Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside as not sustainable, and the matters were remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for further scrutiny of the refund claims. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a reexamination of the claims by the original authority.