2015 (9) TMI 940 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No.41/07-ST - services used for export purposes - Terminal Handling Service - GTA services (export) and C&F agency services - held that - Refund was denied to the Appellant mainly on various procedural grounds as stated hereinabove. Be that as it may, as regards refund for THC on the grounds such as invoice being raised by shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorization from port authorities, I find that such issues stand concluded in favour of the appellant vide Board Circular dt.12.3.09 as well as various case laws as referred to and relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the case of Riddhi Siddhi GlucoBiols Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 187 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and Fibre Bond Industries (2014 (3) TMI 372 - CESTAT MUMBAI). As such, denial of refund claim on THC services does not appear to be correct and is allowed. As regards CHA/C&F service, sufficient co-relation was demonstrated during the course of hearing, that the export consignment, as per Shipping Bill and the service provided in this regard are verifiable and co-relatable on the face of document in form of Shipping Bill number, Invoice Number, Container Number etc. and as such, the ground on which such refund is denied, does not appear to be proper. As regards Shipping Bill showing name of different CHA as compared to the actual service provider, it is a practice in vogue to seek services by way of outsourcing by certain shipping lines/CHAs/freight forwarders to arrange for export of consignments for the exporters. In fact, similar situation was examined in the case of ADF Foods (supra) and refund was granted. As such, refund in respect of CHA and C&F agent service also is held allowable to the Appellant. In terms of Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dt.12.3.09, procedural infractions in respect of export documents are required to be ignored while granting refund. Once it is not in dispute that Services are specified for refund purpose, on the date of claim, and since Service Tax was actually paid on specified service pertaining to export activity, in terms of the broad scheme of refund under Notification No.41/07-ST (as amended), read with clarifications, refund must be paid to the exporter. - impugned order is quashed and set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund denial for Terminal Handling Service (THC) under Notification No.41/07-ST.
2. Refund denial for GTA services (export).
3. Refund denial for C&F agency services.

Terminal Handling Service (THC) Issue:
The Appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim for THC under Notification No.41/07-ST. The rejection was based on service providers being registered under different categories and lack of authorization from the port authority. The Appellant argued that the nature of service, not the registration category, should determine eligibility for refund. They cited circulars and case laws to support their claim. The judge found in favor of the Appellant, stating that registration category should not affect refund eligibility if the service falls under specified categories.

C&F/CHA Service Issue:
The refund for C&F and CHA services was denied due to discrepancies in service provider names and lack of correlation between invoices and export activities. The Appellant explained that outsourcing export clearances is common, and proper correlation exists between service provider invoices and export activities. The judge agreed with the Appellant, emphasizing the importance of verifiable correlation between shipping bill details and services provided, granting the refund for these services.

GTA Service Issue:
Refund denial for GTA services was based on missing details on the transport documents. The Appellant argued that the denial was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and that proper correlation existed between container numbers on transport documents and export details. The judge agreed with the Appellant, stating that mentioning export invoice details on incoming transportation documents is unnecessary, and proper correlation between documents establishes eligibility for refund.

In conclusion, the judge quashed the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Procedural grounds for refund denial were disregarded, emphasizing that if specified services were used for export activities and Service Tax was paid, the refund should be granted. The judgment favored the Appellant on all issues, overturning the lower authorities' decisions and granting the refund for THC, C&F/CHA, and GTA services.