2017 (1) TMI 1133 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - service tax paid on services used for export of goods - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Held that - the appellant has not submitted sufficient proof to establish that refund of service tax claimed for port services was actually the service tax paid by port service providers. Since records reveals that the claim of the appellant that the services provided by the service providers stated earlier were not authorized to provide port services and the evidences called for in the impugned notices such as documents to establish that the Cenvat credit was not availed not forthcoming from the records of the case, we do not find any merits in the appeals filed by the appellant - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for service tax paid on services used for export of goods; Qualification of services as port services under Section 65(82) of Finance Act, 1994; Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 41/2007-ST; Sufficiency of evidence provided by the appellant for refund claims.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD arose from a common Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for service tax paid on services used for exporting goods. The appellants, manufacturers of specific products, filed four refund claims but faced show cause notices alleging non-compliance with conditions and qualification of services as port services. The Original Authority rejected the refund claims, stating that the services did not qualify as port services under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the authorization of service providers and non-fulfillment of Notification No. 41/2007-ST conditions.

During the hearing, the appellants argued procedural compliance with the refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST and presented documentary evidence. They referred to an amendment extending the time limit for filing refunds and cited a relevant case law. The Departmental Representative supported the Order-in-Appeal.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found the appellant's evidence insufficient to prove that the service tax claimed for port services was actually paid by authorized providers. The lack of documentation to establish non-availment of Cenvat credit and the authorization of service providers led to the rejection of the appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claims lacked merit, resulting in the dismissal of both appeals.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues surrounding the qualification of services as port services, compliance with notification conditions, and the sufficiency of evidence in refund claims, as addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD.