2016 (9) TMI 287 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax port services THC charges bill of lading charges origin haulage charges repo charges - GTA services non-submission of proof of payment proper invoice not submitted Held that - the issue has been covered in many case laws. The decision taken in the case SRF Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI is followed here appeal allowed in favor of assesse. Cleaning activity Held that - since the appellant has produced the certificate for the first time before this Tribunal, the same should be verified by the Original Authority - matter remanded. CHA services description of goods details of other expenses Held that - that the invoices of CHA contained cross reference of S.B./ Invoice, which contains the description of goods. Further, the case Shivam Exports vs. CCE 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI is followed refund allowed appeal disposed off decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of service tax refund on various grounds including THC charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, repo charges, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services, improper invoice submission, and cleaning activity not meeting Notification conditions.
- CHA services refund denied due to missing description of goods in CHA invoices and lack of details of other expenses.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a service tax refund amounting to ?1,39,361 for the period from 1.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. The grounds for rejection included various charges not falling under Port Services, lack of proof of tax deposition under port services, non-submission of proof of service tax payment on GTA services, improper invoice submission, and cleaning activity not meeting specific conditions.

2. The appellant argued that the rejection grounds related to THC charges, bills of lading charges, and origin haulage charges were untenable, citing precedents like Shivam Exports & Ors., SRF Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, and Suncity Art Exports & Ors. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, following the precedents, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant for these issues.

3. Regarding the cleaning activity issue, the appellant claimed that the service was essential for export and was not taxable as per a Board's Circular. The appellant provided a certificate from the Competent Authority to support this claim. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Original Authority for verification of the certificate. If found valid, the refund would be granted.

4. In the case of CHA services, the issue was the absence of a description of goods in CHA invoices and the lack of details of other expenses. The Tribunal noted that the invoices contained cross-references to S.B./Invoice with goods descriptions. Citing the decision in Shivam Exports vs. CCE, the Tribunal ruled that the refund amount was permissible to the appellant.

5. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, with the Tribunal allowing the refund based on the above considerations.