2024 (8) TMI 1338 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid on the services availed in course of export by whatever name the said services are availed under N/N. 41/2007- ST dated 06.10.2007 - procedural violation - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the case of M/S. DURGA MARBLE MINERALS VERSUS C.C.E. JAIPUR-II 2016 (12) TMI 993 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that Since export of goods in question has not been disputed by the Department service tax paid on the taxable services used for ultimte exportation of goods in our opinion should merit consideration for refund in terms of the Notification dated 6- 10-2007. The appellants are eligible to avail refund on GTA Services; however as submitted by the learned Authorized Representative the refund shall be limited to the GTA Services availed from the ICD to the Port of export; for this purpose the matter has to travel back to the Original Authority for verification of the claim of the appellants. Also in the case of Inspection and Testing Charges as per their own averment the appellants did not submit the copies of agreements before the Original Authority; the appeals as far as these charges are concerned also require to be verified by the Original Authority only to the extent of verification of concerned agreements - the credit of service tax paid for C F Services shall be admissible only w.e.f. 07.12.2008. The appeals are partly allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims on service tax paid for various services related to export denied by Revenue. Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims. Appellants appeal against the decisions.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in export business, claimed refunds on service tax paid for input services under Notification No.41/2007-ST. Revenue disputed the claims through Show Cause Notices and subsequent Orders-in-Original rejecting the refunds. The main objection was the lack of correlation between invoices and shipments, absence of lorry receipts, and non-submission of relevant documents. The appellants argued that GTA Services refunds were wrongly denied, citing precedents such as Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd and Dolphins Knit Pvt. Ltd. They contended that GTA Services and rail transportation should be considered as Port Services, supported by cases like Evergreen International Ltd. and Durga Marble & Minerals.

The appellants submitted invoices during adjudication, trying to correlate them indirectly. However, the Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denials. The Authorized Representative for the Department emphasized the conditions under Notification No.41/2007 for refunds, highlighting specific timelines and requirements for each service category. The appellants clarified they only claimed GTA Services from ICD to the Port, not from the place of removal. They also argued that Inspection and Technical Services fell under Port Services, referring to Durga Marble & Minerals and Kriti Industries cases.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the appellants eligible for GTA Services refunds limited to ICD to Port transport, requiring verification by the Original Authority. The Inspection and Testing Charges refunds were subject to agreement verification. C & F Services refunds were deemed admissible from 07.12.2008 onwards. The Tribunal disagreed with objections regarding invoice details based on legal precedents. The appeals were partly allowed, remanding specific issues to the Original Authority for further verification. Refunds for GTA Services, Testing and Inspection charges, C & F Charges, and banking charges were conditionally approved.