9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 520 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods during the quarter October-December 2008 in terms of N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - rejecton of refund only on the ground that the services of CHA taxable under Section 65(105)(h) of the Service Tax Act 1994 were brought under the category of specified services vide N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - HELD THAT - This finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong because the services of CHA were brought under the category of specified services w.e.f. 01.04.2008 vide Notification No. 17/2008-ST dated 01.04.2008 vide which Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 was amended. So it is wrongly held by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the services of CHA were not covered. Further it is found that otherwise also the impugned services namely DEPB Charges Terminal Handling Charges Postage Charges etc. are covered under the specified services as provided in the said Notification. It is also found that service tax on the impugned services has been paid under the category of CHA and therefore classification of the service cannot be disputed at CHA s end. Conclusion - The disputed services such as DEPB Charges Terminal Handling Charges and Postage Charges fell under the specified services as per the notification. Refund remains allowed. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the rejection of the refund claim of Rs.82,962/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) was lawful.2. Whether the services of Customs House Agent (CHA) were correctly categorized under specified services for the relevant period.Issue-wise detailed analysis:The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and export of excisable goods, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on services used in export of goods. The Deputy Commissioner initially rejected a portion of the claim, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund of Rs.82,962/- on the grounds that the services of CHA were not specified under the relevant notification. The appellant challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal.The appellant argued that the rejection of the refund claim was not legally sustainable as the services of CHA were indeed covered under specified services during the relevant period. They provided evidence that the services under dispute were billed by the CHA and service tax was charged and collected by them. The appellant also cited relevant case law to support their position.The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order, maintaining that the rejection was justified.The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, found that the rejection of the refund claim based on the categorization of CHA services under a specific notification was incorrect. They noted that the services of CHA had been classified under specified services from 01.04.2008, contrary to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the disputed services such as DEPB Charges, Terminal Handling Charges, and Postage Charges fell under the specified services as per the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that service tax had been paid on these services under the category of CHA, and therefore, the classification could not be disputed.Significant holdings:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as per law.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the rejection of the refund claim of Rs.82,962/- based on the incorrect categorization of CHA services. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper interpretation of relevant notifications and the payment of service tax in determining the eligibility for refunds.
|
