2015 (7) TMI 99 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Non compliance with the condition of the Notification No. 41 /2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 - Terminal Handling Charges - Held that - Refund to the services availed by the appellant on Terminal Handling Charges have been denied on the premise that same does not qualify as Port Charges but as per the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 112/6/2009-S.T., dated 12-3-2009 where it has been clarified that if it is not in dispute that the service availed by the assessee is in the course of their business of export and the assessee has paid the service tax thereon, therefore it is not required to examine under which category the service tax provider has paid the service tax. - as per the said C.B.E. & C. circular dated 12-3-2009, I hold that as it is not disputed that the appellant has used these service in the course of business of export, and they have paid the service tax thereon, therefore, the appellant are entitled for refund claim. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order qua rejecting the claim on account of input service on terminal handling charges - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on non-compliance with Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by lower authorities due to non-compliance with Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007.
2. The refund claim was related to input service credit for services like Terminal Handling Charges, CHA, and banking charges. Lower authorities denied the claim, stating that these services were not defined as Port Service, and service tax was not paid on Port Service.
3. Despite the appellant's absence during the hearing, a request was made to decide the appeal on its merits.
4. The impugned order denied refund for Terminal Handling Charges, considering them not qualifying as Port Charges. However, a C.B.E. & C. Circular clarified that if services are availed in the course of export business and service tax is paid, the specific category of service tax payment is not relevant.
5. Based on the Circular, it was established that the appellant used the services in the course of export business and paid the service tax, entitling them to the refund claim. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the claim for input service on terminal handling charges was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.