9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 191 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 and 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - as per N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009, the time limit for filing the refund claim was extended to one year - for the quarter ending July 2009 to September 2009, refund claim was filed on 9.12.2009 - Admittedly, the refund claim is filed by the appellant within time limit prescribed as per N/N. 17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. Refund claim - terminal handling charges - denial on the ground that these are port services - Held that - this terminal handling charges has been paid by the appellant at port and the said service has been availed by the appellant for export of the goods - CBEC Circular dated 26.2.2010, clarifies that irrespective of the classification of service provided by the service provider, if the services are related to port service, the same shall be considered for benefit of refund - on terminal handling charges, the appellant is entitled to claim refund as the said services has been availed by the appellant at port and do qualify for port services. Refund claim on CHA service - denial on the ground that the invoices is not in the name of the appellant issued by the CHA - Held that - on the shipping bill, name of the CHA mentioned and export through the authorised CHA has been made by the appellant - on charges paid to CHA and the service tax thereon, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST and 41/2007-ST. 2. Refund claim rejection based on services: Custom House Agent (CHA) service and terminal handling charges. 3. Refund claim rejection on grounds of limitation. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Refund Claim under Notifications The appellant appealed against the denial of their refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST and 41/2007-ST. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was denied for Custom House Agent service and terminal handling charges services. The appellant contended that the refund claim was within the time limit prescribed by Notification No.17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that the refund claim filed within the specified time frame should be allowed the benefit of refund of service tax paid in export. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim filed by the appellant was within the prescribed time limit and could not be rejected on the grounds of limitation. Issue 2: Refund Claim Rejection Based on Services Regarding the refund claim for terminal handling charges, the Revenue argued that these charges were not covered under port service, hence not eligible for Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal observed that the terminal handling charges were paid by the appellant at the port for exporting goods and were related to port services. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal clarified that services related to port services should be considered for the benefit of refund. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to claim a refund for terminal handling charges as they qualified as port services. Issue 3: Refund Claim Rejection on Grounds of Limitation On the refund claim for CHA service, the Revenue contended that the invoices were not in the appellant's name issued by the CHA. However, the Tribunal found that the CHA's name was mentioned on the shipping bill, and the export was done through the authorized CHA by the appellant. As the service was received by the appellant for exporting goods, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit and claim a refund under the relevant notifications. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their refund claim under the specified notifications for Custom House Agent service and terminal handling charges, and rejecting the limitation-based grounds for denial of the refund claim.
|
