2010 (6) TMI 178 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption by refund- The appellant claimed refund of service tax paid on THC charges REPO/BL charges DDC & Haulage charges documentation charges by classifying these charges under Port Service defined under Section 65(105)(zn) and their claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant have not submitted any documentary evidence to prove that the port has authorized the service provider to provide these services in relation to port service. Held that- services involved connected with Port Service and as per statutory definition the same covered thereunder. Impugned order granting refund sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's claim of refund of service tax on various charges classified as port services.
2. Interpretation of the definition of port services under Section 65(105)(zn).
3. Availability of documentary evidence to support the claim.
4. Revenue's appeal against the order allowing the refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed a refund of service tax on THC charges, REPO/BL charges, DDC, haulage charges, and documentation charges, classifying them as port services. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim due to lack of documentary evidence showing authorization by the port for the services provided. However, the appellant produced invoices and debit notes from service providers, indicating service tax registration numbers and payment of service tax, supporting their claim.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) defined port services under Section 65(105)(zn) as services provided by a port or authorized person in relation to port services. The invoices and debit notes clearly mentioned service particulars, service tax registration numbers, and payment of service tax, demonstrating that the services were provided by registered service tax providers. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant's claim for a refund on port services was valid based on the evidence presented.

3. The learned advocate argued that the Revenue had considered the services as port services when collecting service tax, and therefore, they should not dispute the classification during the refund process. The judge agreed, stating that the services were connected with port services and fell within the definition as interpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The judge found no error in the Commissioner's order and rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the availability of the refund on the claimed port services.

4. The judgment delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow the refund of service tax on the charges categorized as port services. The judgment emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, the interpretation of the definition of port services, and the consistency in considering the services as port services throughout the tax collection and refund processes. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, confirming the validity of the appellant's claim for a refund on the specified port services charges.