2013 (7) TMI 553 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of Refund - Refund of service tax paid under Terminal Handling Charges, Inland Haulage Charges, B.L. Charges, Rail Freight and Agency Charges Held that - Refund of service tax paid and Charges admissible - invoices clearly show amount against THC as well as B.L.C and the service tax had been paid on these charges - the container number and Shipping bill number was also mentioned on the invoices in the name of assessee - sufficient to prove that the consignment in question was exported - Court relied upon Durhan Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad (2012 (8) TMI 288 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) - what is required to be seen was whether service tax was paid for required service under admissible category or not. Refund of service tax paid on Rail Freight and Inland Haulage Charges Held that - Assessee would be eligible for the refund of the service tax paid by them under the Notification No. 17/2009-ST court relied upon Trident Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh(2013 (4) TMI 201 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) - invoices issued by the various Rail operators clearly shows the container number and name of the assessee decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for specified services like Terminal Handling Charges, Inland Haulage Charges, Rail Freight, B.L. Charges, Agency Charges, and Customs Clearances denied due to lack of bills from service providers.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to M/s Punjab Stainless Steel Industries seeking a refund of service tax paid under various specified services. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned a partial refund of Rs. 902 but rejected a significant amount of Rs. 1,48,734. The appellants then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeal), who also rejected their claim. The primary issue revolves around the denial of refund due to the absence of bills from the service providers in the name of the appellant. The bills were instead submitted by the CHA and different Rail operators for services like Terminal Handling Charges, Inland Haulage Charges, B.L. Charges, Rail Freight, and Agency Charges.

The Tribunal analyzed the situation by referring to a previous case, Durhan Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, where it was established that the key consideration is whether the service tax was paid for the required service under an admissible category. In this case, the invoices issued by the CHA clearly indicated the amount against Terminal Handling Charges and B.L. Charges, with service tax paid on these charges by the CHA. The invoices also included container numbers and shipping bill numbers, providing sufficient evidence that the consignment in question was exported by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the refund of service tax paid for Terminal Handling Charges and B.L. Charges as admissible.

Regarding the refund of service tax paid on Rail Freight and Inland Haulage Charges, the invoices were issued by various Rail operators, clearly showing container numbers, the appellant's name, and corresponding invoice numbers. The Tribunal cited a precedent, Trident Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh, where it was held that mentioning the container number reasonably establishes that the service was related to the export of goods, warranting a refund. Consequently, the appellants were found eligible for the refund of service tax paid under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The Tribunal set aside the Order in Appeal and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the sufficiency of container numbers and invoice details for establishing eligibility for the refund.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical issues surrounding the denial and subsequent allowance of the refund claim based on the presence of necessary documentation and adherence to legal precedents.