2016 (8) TMI 547 - AT - Service Tax

Refund denial business support service services received inside the port Held that - there is no dispute that the services are with reference to export of goods rendered inside the port, the claim cannot be denied on the ground that tax has been paid under different classification by the provider of service. The Board also clarified that there is no requirement of verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service refund allowed. GTA service transportation of goods from ICD to port - supporting invoices not submitted along with claim Held that - appellant submitted all the documents as soon as they were received refund allowed. Appeal disposed off decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund under Notification No.41/2007-ST for services received inside the port classified under Business Support Service.
2. Refund of service tax paid on GTA services for transporting goods from ICD to Port.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the eligibility of refund for service tax paid on services received inside the port. The Tribunal referred to a Board clarification dated 12.3.2009 and various decisions to establish that such claims cannot be denied based on the service provider's registration category or lack of evidence authorizing the services by port authorities. Citing cases like S.R.F. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Jaipur I and Shivam Exports vs. C.C.E. Jaipur, the Tribunal emphasized that if services are related to the export of goods within the port, the claim cannot be rejected due to different tax classifications. The Board also clarified that there is no need to verify the registration certificate of the service provider, and procedural violations by the service provider should not impact the refund claim.

2. The second issue concerns the refund of service tax paid on GTA services for transporting export goods from ICD to the port. The claim was initially denied due to the absence of supporting invoices with the claim. However, the appellants contended that they submitted all necessary documents promptly upon receipt. The Tribunal found that the denial of refund on this ground was unjustified. It was noted that the services were indeed provided for the transportation of export goods, and the lack of immediate submission of supporting invoices should not be a reason to reject the claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the original authority to process the refund claims after verifying the supporting evidence submitted by the appellants. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.