2010 (6) TMI 318 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - refund of service tax paid on various services availed by the appellant - refund on the services of repositioning charges, in land, the haulage charges and goods transport operator services - service provider are neither port or authorized by port, their refund sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority was not proper - refund of tax paid on CHA charges stands rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) on the sole ground that the same is not supported by the invoices - Held that - As regards the THC charges - introduced with effect from 7-7-09 and as such at this prima facie stage, the appellant cannot be said to be entitled to the refund of the same - CHA charges - observations of Commissioner (Appeals) are not supported by the facts on record -

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax on various services availed by the appellant, refund on repositioning charges, haulage charges, and goods transport operator services, refund on terminal handling charges, refund on CHA charges.

Refund of service tax on various services availed by the appellant:
The issue involved the refund of service tax paid on various services availed by the appellant. Initially, the refund was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, but the Revenue filed an appeal against it. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the present appeal. The appellant claimed that the service providers for repositioning charges, haulage charges, and goods transport operator services were not port-authorized, leading to the denial of their refund by the Commissioner (Appeals). The advocate highlighted a previous decision in favor of the appellant by the same Commissioner (Appeals) and mentioned a rejected stay petition by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not entitled to a refund for terminal handling charges paid before 7-7-09, as per Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The appellant argued that terminal handling charges were part of port services, but the Revenue contended that a separate entry for terminal handling charges was introduced, making them admissible only from 7-7-09.

Refund on CHA charges:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund of tax paid on CHA charges, citing lack of invoice support. The advocate disagreed, stating that the Deputy Commissioner had already sanctioned the refund after examining relevant documents, including invoices. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the submitted invoices due to passing the order before receiving the written submissions. The Tribunal found that the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding CHA charges were not supported by the facts on record, indicating a possible entitlement to the refund.

Decision and Directions:
The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs within six weeks, considering the inadmissibility of terminal handling charges for tax refund and the lack of financial hardship pleaded by the appellant. The Tribunal scheduled a final disposal of the appeals on 22-7-10, including earlier appeals of the same party.