2012 (10) TMI 913 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of service tax - denial as Terminal Handling Charges used in respect of goods exported - Held that - The rejection has not been made on the ground that it is not Port Service but only on the ground that the Terminal Handling Charge was not specifically mentioned earlier. Since, there is no dispute nor there is any record or observation to show that service tax was not paid under the category of Port Service for Terminal Handling Charges and Port Services, admittedly are notified in the Notification No. 41/2007-ST, refund is admissible - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for service tax paid on various services, including Terminal Handling Charges.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the rejection of the refund claim specifically for Terminal Handling Charges, citing previous tribunal decisions supporting the eligibility for such refunds. The appellant argued that the Terminal Handling Charges were paid under the category of Port Service, which was a notified service, making the refund admissible. The learned counsel highlighted discrepancies in the Commissioner's decision regarding the applicability of previous tribunal observations on refund eligibility for such charges.

The learned A.R. contended that Terminal Handling Charges were explicitly mentioned in Notification No. 17/2009, amending Notification No. 41/2007-ST, supporting the rejection of the refund claim. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the payment of service tax on Terminal Handling Charges for Port Services was evident and that Port Services were indeed notified in the relevant notification, making the refund admissible.

The Tribunal scrutinized the submissions from both sides and concluded that the observations in the previous tribunal decisions constituted a valid basis for refund eligibility. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence to establish the category under which service tax was paid, particularly for bill of lading charges, and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further verification. The decision was made to allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for a decision on bill of lading charges based on the evidence to be produced by the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for Terminal Handling Charges as the charges were paid under the category of Port Service, which was a notified service. The rejection was based on the absence of specific mention of Terminal Handling Charges, not on the grounds of incorrect categorization or non-payment of service tax under the relevant category. The decision highlighted the importance of verifying the category under which service tax was paid for different charges and emphasized the need for supporting evidence in such cases.