2015 (2) TMI 43 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 16-10-2007 - Port services - Improper documents - Held that - The Bill of Lading is not a proper document for either payment or availment of service tax. However, the appellants have now produced invoices. The said invoices were not produced either before the original authority or the Commissioner (Appeals). In this regard, the matter is therefore remanded to the original authority to examine the case. As far as the invoice is concerned, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the goods were exported. Port services are availed and while availing the Port services the service tax was paid. The fact that M/s. MPRS Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is not authorized is not relevant as the said service was originally provided by M/s. APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. In view of the said position, the refund claim amounting to ₹ 13,645/- is allowed. Appellants claim is that they have not engaged any transporters for the same but entrusted the whole job to Custom House Agents. The CHA in turn has raised the bills for the transportation charges and as receiver of the said service they have in turn paid the service tax to the Government Account. The objection of the department is that the appellants have not produced lorry receipt and in the invoice the details are not mentioned and it is difficult to co-relate. However, the ld. Counsel submits that they will try to contact CHA to get the lorry receipt and also it will be possible for them to co-relate the bills with the goods exported under Shipping Bill. Since the ld. Counsel undertakes to produce the lorry receipt and make attempt to co-relate the bills with the goods exported, the matter is remanded to the original authority who can examine on the basis of the documents if produced - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.
2. Disallowance of refund relating to Port Service due to missing invoice copy.
3. Authorization of M/s. MPRS Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. to issue invoices.
4. Refund claim amounting to &8377; 13,645/- allowed.
5. Refund claim amounting to &8377; 67,747/- relating to GTA service.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The claim was initially rejected for not being registered with the Service Tax department, but later approved by the Commissioner (Appeals) after producing the registration certificate. However, a specific refund relating to Port Service was disallowed due to missing invoice copy.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed a refund claim as the appellants provided the copy of the Bill of Lading instead of the invoice for one case. It was argued that M/s. APL (I) Pvt. Ltd. handled the services on behalf of M/s. MPRS Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., and the latter was not authorized by the Port authority to issue invoices for Port Service.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Bill of Lading is not sufficient for payment or service tax availment. Although invoices were now produced, they were not presented earlier. The matter was remanded to the original authority for examination. The Tribunal emphasized that the authorization of M/s. MPRS Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was irrelevant as the service was originally provided by M/s. APL (India) Pvt. Ltd., allowing the refund claim of &8377; 13,645/-.

4. Regarding the refund claim of &8377; 67,747/- for GTA service, the appellants claimed to have entrusted the job to Custom House Agents (CHA) who raised bills for transportation charges. The department objected due to missing lorry receipt and lack of details in the invoice. The Tribunal remanded the matter for the appellants to produce the lorry receipt and correlate bills with exported goods within two months.

5. The appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's decisions regarding the refund claims for Port Service and GTA service, subject to the conditions specified for further document production and correlation.