2017 (7) TMI 414 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 ST - denial on the ground that appellant did not supply ARE-1 and shipping bills (major proof of export documents) to the sanctioning authority nor to the appellate authority - Held that - appellant states that self attested copies of ARE-1 documents were submitted with the refund claim. Further, he states that Copies of shipping bills received from Head Office were filed subsequently in reply to show cause notice. Further, Link chart of exports vis- -vis input services availed for each ARE-1 was also filed with defence reply to the original authority - appellant had filed the documents, as required - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant had not supplied documents evidencing payment of service tax on the specified services - Held that - the Board has clarified that invoices/bills issued by the suppliers of taxable services are sufficient evidence that services are taxable services and refund claim should be processed based on input invoices/bills/challans showing service tax charged by the service providers-as clarified in para-4 of Circular No.106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008 - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed - Held that - appellant had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is available in the appeal paper book, stating that they have not availed Cenvat credit during the period in question. The ld. counsel also states that the appellant was availing Central Excise Exemption under the provisions of Notification No. 30/2004 CE under which they were entitled to clear their goods without Central Excise duty, subject to the condition that they do not take Cenvat credit. The ld. counsel stated that the benefit of said Notification No. 30/2004 CE have never been disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, states that this ground of rejection is not tenable - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not submit any evidence that the service provider were authorized by port trust or other port to render the services - Held that - Board Circular No. 112, clarifies that the granting of refund to exporters on taxable services that he receives and uses for export, do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted, in such cases, if otherwise in order - refund allowed. Refund claim - transport of goods by rail that is the services of transporting the container from the ICD, by Container Corporation of India (Concor) to the Gateway Port - rejection on the ground that the appellant failed to certify the conditions of the services by Rail - Held that - The appellant have taken us through the sample invoice of Concor in the appeal paper book, in which Concor have given the container number, cost of freight and the cost of handling charges. The name of the appellant is also there - this ground also is untenable, as the container number given on invoice for freight is found co-relatable with export documents - refund allowed. Refund claim - CHA services - it is alleged that appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of CHA Services as given in serial No. 13 of the notification - Held that - The ld. counsel have taken me through the sample invoices of the CHA, on record, wherein we find that bill of lading number and date, export container number, vessel name, port of loading, port of delivery, description of export goods etc., is given - all the relevant information is available for allowing the refund of CHA Services received - refund allowed. Refund claim - Handling of export containers within the port - refund is not admissible under category of port services - Held that - Services provided within the port for export of goods, are covered at Sl. No. (2) of the table, without any conditions. Further, he states that the registration of service providers in a different category (CHA) is not material for grant of refund in the eligible category - refund allowed. Refund claim - C & F Service - Held that - From the bill it is evident that the services have been provided in the nature of terminal handling charges and documentation charges - these services are eligible services at the same are also provided by the CHA or C & F and also fall under the port services. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to refund for this service. Refund claim - GTA Services - Held that - the GRN issued by the transporter shows that the goods have been packed in container. Further, such details are co-relatable with the let export order and the invoice of the appellant - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of refund claims by the appellant for Service tax paid and utilized in the course of export under Notification No.41/2007 ST as amended.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Documents evidencing export of goods
The appellant did not initially provide ARE-1 and shipping bills with the refund claim. However, self-attested copies of ARE-1 documents were later submitted along with shipping bills. The appellate authority was satisfied with the documents provided, and the objection was held untenable.

Issue 2: Evidence of payment of service tax
The appellant failed to furnish documents evidencing payment of service tax on specified services. The appellant argued that invoices/bills from service providers are sufficient evidence, as clarified by the Board. The tribunal agreed with this argument, holding the objection untenable.

Issue 3: Availment of Cenvat credit
The lower court found that the appellant did not provide evidence of not availing Cenvat credit. However, the appellant certified in writing that they did not avail Cenvat credit during the period in question. The tribunal accepted this certification and rejected the objection.

Issue 4: Authorization of service providers
The objection regarding the authorization of service providers was dismissed based on a Board Circular that clarified the requirements for granting refunds to exporters using taxable services for export, without the need for verifying registration certificates of service providers.

Issue 5: Transport of goods by rail
The objection related to the certification of rail services was dismissed as the invoices provided by the appellant contained relevant details correlating with export documents, establishing the eligibility for refund.

Issue 6: CHA Services
The tribunal found that all necessary information for refund eligibility regarding CHA Services was available in the sample invoices provided by the appellant, and thus, the objection was dismissed.

Issue 7: Handling of export containers within the port
The objection regarding the handling of export containers within the port was dismissed as the services provided were covered under eligible categories without any conditions, irrespective of the service providers' registration.

Issue 8: C & F Agent Services
The objection regarding C & F Agent Services was rejected, and the appellant was found entitled to a refund for services provided by C & F Agents, as they fell under eligible services for refund.

Issue 9: GTA Services
The objection regarding GTA Services was dismissed, and the appellant was found eligible for a refund based on evidence showing the transport of goods in the course of export.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders that rejected the refunds. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to re-compute the refunds and disburse them to the appellant within 60 days, along with interest as per rules. The appellant was granted the liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority with a copy of the order and refund calculation for further proceedings.