2015 (8) TMI 1103 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 - non-fulfilment of conditions regarding furnishing of contract and non-mentioning of the amount paid to commission agent in the shipping bills - Held that - The appellant had not produced the copy of contract and the amount of Service Tax paid is not mentioned in the shipping bills. In respect of terminal handling charges and carriage service, these services are for delivery of goods after export at the destination port hence the same are not covered under the provisions of the Notification. In respect of other services, the nature of service provided and amounts are not shown on the bills of service provider and there is no averment in the present appeal regarding these deficiencies hence I find no infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims of Service Tax paid on input services used in export of goods.
2. Entitlement for refund as per Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.
3. Rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Grounds for rejection - non-fulfilment of conditions, lack of documentation.
5. Services covered under CHA services for refund eligibility.
6. Dismissal of appeal based on non-fulfilment of conditions and lack of evidence.

Analysis:
The appellant filed refund claims amounting to &8377; 95,744/- and &8377; 2,06,839/- for Service Tax paid on input services used in the export of goods, claiming entitlement under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The appeal was made against the order where the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the Revenue's appeal and rejected the appellant's refund claims. The appellant argued that despite the commission agent discontinuing services, the refund claim pertained to a period before the discontinuation, justifying their entitlement. Additionally, they claimed refund for terminal handling charges and carriage services as part of CHA services, along with Service Tax paid for services related to export of goods to France.

The Revenue contended that the refund claims were rightly rejected as the services for which Service Tax was paid were not directly related to the export of goods. The Tribunal noted that the refund claims were dismissed due to non-compliance with conditions such as failing to provide the contract and not mentioning the amount paid to the commission agent in shipping bills. The appellant's lack of explanation and documentation, including missing details on bills of service providers for various services, led to the rejection of the refund claims. It was clarified that terminal handling charges and carriage services for goods after export were not covered under the relevant Notification.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, as essential conditions were not fulfilled, and crucial documentation was missing. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the failure to meet the necessary requirements for refund claims, leading to the decision to uphold the rejection of the claims by the lower authority. The judgment underscores the importance of fulfilling all conditions and providing complete documentation to support refund claims under relevant notifications.