2018 (4) TMI 1331 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 17/2009 - ST dated 07.07.2009 - Port Services - CHA Services - Sterlizing of Export Goods - denial of port services and CHA services on the ground that necessary documents not produced - Held that - in respect of port services and CHA Services, the denial of refund claim in the absence of necessary documents not tenable - refund allowed. Fumigation/Seterlization Charges - rejected on the ground that service provider has provided the service for sterilization of exported goods, but not provided fumigation of the export containers - Held that - the Service Tax paid on Fumigation/Sterlization charges is not allowable for the reason that the same charges are allowed only for containers and not on the goods to be exported - the assessee - Appellants have claimed the Fumigation/Sterlization charges on the goods which is not permissible as per N/N. 17/2009 - ST dated 07.07.2009 - refund rightly rejected. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim disallowed on Port Services, CHA Services, and Sterilization of Export Goods.

Port Services:
The lower authorities rejected the refund claims on THC, bills of lading, origin haulage, and repo charges, stating they were not covered under port services as the service providers were registered under a different category. The proof of tax deposition under port services was not provided. The Tribunal allowed the refund claim based on previous decisions, stating that the benefit is allowable to the appellant.

CHA Services:
The CHA services refund claim was rejected as the CHA license and copy were not produced. However, it was noted that the service tax had been paid by the service provider under the CHA category, and invoices were available in the record. Therefore, the refund claim was allowed on this ground.

Sterilization of Export Goods:
The claim for Service Tax paid on Fumigation/Sterilization charges was rejected as the service provider only provided sterilization of exported goods, not fumigation of export containers. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, stating that the charges for fumigation are eligible for refund under the notification, whereas charges for sterilization of exported goods are not covered. Therefore, the claim for Fumigation/Sterilization charges on goods was not permissible, and the impugned order was upheld on this ground.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, concluding that the Service Tax paid on Fumigation/Sterilization charges was not allowable for goods to be exported. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of each issue, including the specific grounds for rejection and the relevant legal provisions.