Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 108 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 ST dated 06.10.2007 - THC charges - bills of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges - denial on the ground that these are not port services - Held that - the said services were used/utilized by the appellant within the port, facilitating exportation of goods. Thus, irrespective of the classification of service made by the service provider, the same should be considered as Port Service for the purpose of refund benefit - refund allowed. Refund claim - rejection also on the ground that proper invoice/documents were not submitted by the appellant - Held that - Since it is the responsibility of the exporter to produce the documents, correlating the same with the export goods, the same should be filed/ produced by the appellant before the original authority, who shall on verification and co-relation with the export goods, allow the refund benefit if found admissible. Therefore, for verification of the documents, the matter is remanded to the original authority - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 - ST dated 06.10.2007 based on various grounds including improper invoices, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax, missing details on invoices, and non-compliance with conditions under notifications. Analysis: 1. Refund Claim on Various Charges: The authorities rejected the refund claim citing that charges like THC, bills of lading, origin haulage, and repo charges did not confirm to Port Services due to service providers being registered under different categories. The appellant argued that these services were used for exportation of goods within the port, making them eligible for refund as "Port Services." The Tribunal agreed, stating that regardless of the service provider's classification, if the services facilitated exportation of goods, they should be considered as Port Services for refund purposes. 2. Improper Invoices and Missing Details: The refund claim was also rejected due to improper invoices and missing details such as the description of goods, IEC No., export invoice no., and other expenses on the invoices. The Tribunal noted that while the authorities did not dispute the exportation of goods, they emphasized the responsibility of the exporter to provide proper documents correlating with the exported goods. The matter was remanded to the original authority for verification and correlation of documents with export goods to determine the admissibility of the refund claim for services listed at Sl. Nos. (b) to (g). 3. Non-Submission of Proof of Payment and Non-Compliance: The refund claim was further rejected for non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA Services and non-compliance with conditions related to cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services. The appellant argued that relevant documents were available and could be verified by the original authority. The Tribunal did not address these issues directly but remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of documents related to services listed at Sl. Nos. (b) to (g) for potential refund eligibility. 4. Legal Precedence and Authorities' Findings: The appellant cited legal precedents to support their arguments, while the Revenue relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the services mentioned at Sl. No. (a) and remanding the matter to the original authority for verification and potential refund approval for services listed at Sl. Nos. (b) to (g). In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the refund claim for services facilitating exportation of goods within the port, emphasized the responsibility of the exporter to provide proper documents, and remanded the matter to the original authority for verification and potential refund approval based on the correlation of documents with export goods.
|