2017 (2) TMI 625 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - various input services - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 - denial on the ground that the said services are not confirming to port service - Held that - the services concerning Terminal Handling Charges, B/L charges, Custom Clearance Charges, Documentation Charges, Agency Charges, haulage charges, business auxiliary service, business support service and Repo Charges were provided by the service providers within the port, facilitating export of goods. Since those services were provided within the port, irrespective of the classification of the services by the service providers, the benefit of refund provided in notification dated 06/10/2007 should be available to the appellant. Since the entire invoices referred to in the SCN were not submitted by the appellant, the matter should go back to the original Authority for verification of the invoices issued by the service provider - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund denial under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for various services - Terminal Handling Charges, B/L charges, Custom Clearance Charges, etc.
Refund rejection for cleaning activity services due to lack of relevant documents.
Denial of refund for non-submission of proper invoice by the CHA.

Analysis:
The appeals challenged the order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur, regarding the denial of refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for services like Terminal Handling Charges, B/L charges, Custom Clearance Charges, and more. The denial was based on the assertion that these services did not fall under port services. Additionally, refund for cleaning activity services was rejected due to the appellant's failure to provide necessary documents. Furthermore, the refund was also refused because of the improper invoice submission by the CHA.

The appellant contended that as per previous tribunal decisions, services like Terminal Handling Charges, B/L charges, etc., provided within the port should qualify for the refund under the mentioned notification. The advocate highlighted precedents like SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur, and others to support this argument. Regarding cleaning activity services, the appellant did not contest the refund rejection. The advocate also presented invoices to demonstrate compliance with the requirements.

The respondent, represented by the DR, maintained the findings of the impugned order during the hearing. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the services in question were provided within the port, making the appellant eligible for the refund under the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that despite the classification by service providers, the services fell within the scope of the notification. Regarding invoice submission, it was noted that the invoices contained the necessary information as per the notification. However, since not all invoices were provided, the matter was referred back to the original authority for verification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the refund eligibility for services provided within the port and directed verification of invoices for further processing. The appeal concerning cleaning activity services was dismissed as the appellant did not pursue the refund for that service. The judgment was pronounced in open court, disposing of the appeals accordingly.