2017 (5) TMI 876 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Denial of refund on account of the appellants have claimed duty drawback - Held that - the refund claim of services used for export of goods cannot be denied to the appellants claimed duty drawback - refund allowed. Refund claim - Inland Haulage Charges - CHA Service - Clearing and forwarding Agent Service - denial on the ground that the services do not qualify as port services - Held that - the Inland Haulage Charges, CHA Service and Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service have been received by the appellants for export of goods at port and are covered under port services - refund allowed. Refund also denied on the ground that the appellant has not produced the payment of proof of payment of service tax - Held that - As the invoices of the above services are on record showing payment of service tax. In that circumstances, on this ground refund claims cannot be rejected to the appellant. Refund claim - Road Transport Service - denial on the ground that there is no co-relation of invoices issued by the service provider or the goods transporter - Held that - the adjudicating authority is directed to verify the documents for the service received by the appellants and corresponding invoice of service provided by the goods transporter and to ascertain the fact, whether the invoices produced by the appellants are for transportation of goods their factory to the port for export - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund denial under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for various services including port service, inland haulage charges, CHA service, and clearing and forwarding agent service. Denial of refund due to duty drawback claim. Lack of proof of payment of service tax. Lack of correlation in invoices for road transport service.

Analysis:

1. Denial of refund due to duty drawback claim:
The Tribunal discussed the issue of denial of refund based on the appellant's duty drawback claim. It referenced a previous case and the observations of the Director of Drawback, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The Tribunal clarified that services used for export of goods, not covered under duty drawback, are eligible for a refund. It emphasized that services for export purposes are distinct from duty drawback claims, allowing the appellants to claim a refund for service tax paid on specified services.

2. Denial of refund for specific services under port services:
The Tribunal addressed the denial of refund concerning Inland Haulage Charges, CHA Service, and Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service, stating they were not considered as port services. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal concluded that these services were indeed part of port services and eligible for a refund. It highlighted that services paid for at the port are covered under port services, supporting the appellants' refund claim.

3. Lack of proof of payment of service tax:
Another ground for refund denial was the alleged absence of proof of service tax payment. However, the Tribunal noted that invoices showing service tax payment were on record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the refund claims could not be rejected based on this ground, as the invoices provided sufficient evidence of service tax payment.

4. Lack of correlation in invoices for road transport service:
Regarding the denial of refund due to the lack of correlation in invoices for road transport services, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify the documents to ensure the invoices corresponded to transportation of goods from the factory to the port for export. Once verified, the Tribunal instructed the authority to issue the refund claims to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed and resolved the issues related to the denial of refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for various services, duty drawback claims, lack of proof of payment, and invoice correlation for road transport services, ensuring a fair and detailed analysis for each issue raised in the appeals.