9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 475 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - rejection on the ground that respective input services (pertaining to terminal handling charges, wharfage charges, inspection and certification) were not specified service under N/N. 41/2007 ST dated 6/10/2007 - Held that - matter is covered by the Tribunal s decision in case of Angiplast Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE 2012 (10) TMI 913 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , where it was held that Since, there is no dispute nor there is any record or observation to show that service tax was not paid under the category of Port Service for Terminal Handling Charges and Port Services, admittedly are notified in the N/N. 41/2007-ST, refund is admissible. Refund claim rejected also on the ground of time bar - Held that - The matter is covered by the Tribunal s decision in case of CCE Pune Vs Chandrashekhar Exports 2015 (11) TMI 1112 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that it is settled principle as to Rules and Notifications are issued from to time to supplement the provisions of main Act and grant of relief of refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods has to be sanctioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims due to time bar. 2. Eligibility of refund for terminal handling charges, wharfage charges, and inspection and certification services under Notification No. 41/2007 ST. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of refund claims due to time bar: The primary issue was whether the refund claims filed by the exporter assessee, M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, were time-barred as per Notification No. 41/2007 ST dated 6/10/2007. The Tribunal referenced its decision in the case of CCE Pune Vs Chandrashekhar Exports, which held that procedural lapses in filing refund claims could be condoned if the main conditions of the Act were fulfilled. Despite the appellant filing the refund claims beyond the stipulated six months, the Tribunal found that the first appellate authority correctly considered the issue holistically, viewing the filing delay as a procedural lapse. The Tribunal upheld the principle that rules and notifications supplement the main Act, thus granting relief when conditions prescribed in the main Act are met. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the time bar aspect was not applicable, and the appellant was entitled to the refund claims, provided other conditions in the Notification were satisfied. 2. Eligibility of refund for terminal handling charges, wharfage charges, and inspection and certification services: The second issue involved the eligibility of refund claims for specific services not explicitly mentioned in Notification No. 41/2007 ST. The Tribunal referenced its decision in Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmadabad, which determined that terminal handling charges, although not explicitly listed, were admissible for refund as they were paid under the category of Port Services, a notified service. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute that the service tax for terminal handling charges was paid under Port Services, making the appellant eligible for the refund. For wharfage charges and inspection and certification services, the Tribunal referred to its decision in Ruchi Soya Industries Limited v/s CCE Indore, where it was established that these services, although not explicitly listed, were rendered within the port and paid by a service provider authorized by the port. This classification allowed these services to be considered as port services, thus making them eligible for the refund. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the exporter assessee, M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, was entitled to the refund claims for terminal handling charges, wharfage charges, and inspection and certification services, which had been rejected by the respective impugned orders. The appeals filed by the appellant were allowed, and the cross appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected as without merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedural lapse of filing beyond the stipulated time did not negate the appellant's eligibility for the refund, provided all other conditions of the Notification were met.
|
