2016 (12) TMI 1132 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - denial on the ground that though, to and fro freight charges have been claimed by service provider, no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills from pithampur to port of export - period of limitation - Held that - no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills raised by the transporter for transportation of goods from Pithampur to Port of Export. Rather, the invoice issued by the service provider mentioned the claim of to and fro freight charges. Since the freight charges are in connection with transportation of export goods, in absence of any specific prohibition contained in Notification 41/2007, the benefit of refund should be available to the appellant. Classification of services - THC, BL charges, Inland Haulage Charges, documentation charges, SB, Pallitization charges, Handling charges and weighment charges, claimed under CHA service by the appellant are covered under the said category of service or not? - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of M/s. Shivam Exports, M/s. Mecshot Blasting Equipment (P) Ltd. And M/s. Shree Ram Industries Versus CCE Jaipur 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the services are in relation to the services provided within the port and merits consideration for refund Time bar - Held that - since the appellant is not contesting the refund on the ground of limitation, the rejection of refund claim by the authorities below on the ground of limitation is sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, as amended.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim filed under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the refund benefit citing reasons such as the absence of separate freight mention on bills from Pithampur to the port of export, and the claimed service charges not falling under the specified category. The time limitation aspect was also raised.

The appellant's representative argued that the broad interpretation of "in relation to transport of goods" in the notification covers even the transport of empty containers for stocking export goods. Citing precedents, the advocate contended that various charges like THC, BL charges, and handling charges are eligible for refund under port services. The time bar issue was conceded by the appellant.

The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Member (Judicial) found that since no separate freight was mentioned on the bills, the to and fro freight charges claimed should be considered for refund as they are connected to the transportation of export goods. Precedents were cited to support this view. The charges in question were deemed eligible for refund under the category of port services based on cited decisions. The rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of limitation was upheld since the appellant did not contest it.

Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by allowing the refund on to and fro freight charges, deeming certain other charges eligible for refund under port services, and upholding the rejection of the claim based on limitation grounds. The judgment was pronounced in open court.