2014 (3) TMI 509 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 17/2009-ST. - relationship between the port services and royalty charges - Bar of limitation - CHA Services - Held that - The refund application had been filed on 26/6/12 but if the limitation period of one year is counted from the date of let export order, which is the relevant date in terms of Clause 2 (f) of the Notification, the refund claims for this amount has obviously been filed after the expiry of one year and, therefore, the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 8,890/- is upheld. When the department has accepted service tax on these amounts under port services, at the time of considering refund of the service tax paid on port services to the service recipient, the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities cannot seek to reopen the assessment of service tax at the end of the service provider. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,33,351/- of service tax on the port services on the ground that there is no relationship between the port service and royalty charges, is not correct. Though the invoices of the storage and warehousing service provider do not mention the shipping bill number, the storage and warehousing charges has been charged by the CHA from the appellant and the CHA in the invoices issued by him to the appellant has given complete details of the shipping bill. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the invoices issued by the storage service provider cannot be linked to the shipping bills under which the goods had been exported. While the bank realisation certificate does not mention the shipping bill number, it does mention the invoice number and date and the shipping bills filed by the appellant do mention the export invoice number. Thus, the bank realisation certificate can be linked to the shipping bills under which the exports had been made. Therefore, rejection of refund claim of Rs. 92,125/- on the ground mention in the impugned order is not correct - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims for various services used in exports.
2. Time bar for refund claim of CHA service.
3. Rejection of port service refund claim due to water front royalty charges.
4. Rejection of godown rent refund claim for lack of shipping bill linkage.
5. Rejection of banking services refund claim due to missing shipping bill numbers.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, exporters of rice and sugar, filed refund claims for service tax paid on services used in exports. The Assistant Commissioner rejected claims for CHA service, port service, warehousing service, and banking services. The rejection was based on various grounds like time bar, lack of nexus between port service and royalty charges, and missing invoice details linked to shipping bills.

2. The limitation period for the CHA service refund claim was contested, arguing it should be counted from the bill of lading date. However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection due to the claim being filed after the one-year limitation period from the date of the export order.

3. The rejection of the port service refund claim was overturned as the invoices showed service tax on royalty charges accepted under port services. The Tribunal ruled that the authorities cannot reopen the service provider's assessment when considering the refund to the service recipient.

4. The rejection of the godown rent refund claim was overturned as the CHA had availed warehousing services, and the invoices provided by the CHA contained shipping bill details, establishing a link. The Tribunal found the rejection based on missing shipping bill information to be incorrect.

5. The rejection of the banking services refund claim was overturned as the bank realization certificate, though lacking shipping bill numbers, contained invoice details that could be linked to the shipping bills. The Tribunal deemed the rejection ground invalid and set aside the rejection of this refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the CHA service refund claim due to the time bar but set aside the rejections for port service, godown rent, and banking services refund claims. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.