2017 (6) TMI 1143 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - THC charges - bills of lading charge - origin haulage charges - repo charges - denial on the ground that these services are not covered under Port Service as the service providers are registered under different category of services - Held that - irrespective of the classification of service provided by the service providers, the same should merit consideration as port service for the purpose of refund benefit, since such services were provided within the port of export - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that Proper invoice not submitted (debit notes have not been prescribed as the valid document for the purpose of claiming refund of service tax - Held that - Rule 4A ibid mandates that taxable service has to be provided on invoice, bill or challan, containing certain informations. If the debit notes issued by the service provider contained the desired information, the same should be considered as the valid document for the purpose of extending the benefit contained in Notification dated 06.10.2007 - Since, the debit notes have to be verified by the original authority for ascertaining their contents, we are of the view that matter should go back to the original authority for necessary verification - matter on remand. Refund claim - CHA service - denial on the ground that Description of goods not mentioned in the invoices issued by CHA. Further, details of other expenses have not been furnished - Held that - since the appellant claims that the invoice contained the reference of shipping bills and the description of goods, we are of the view that the matter should be verified to the original authority for verification of such aspect - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - part matter on remand and part decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 for service tax paid on various taxable services.

Analysis:
1. The refund application was rejected based on several grounds, including services not falling under Port Service category, improper invoice submission, lack of proof of payment for certain services, missing details on invoices, and services not covered under the notification.

2. The appellant argued that issues raised in rejection were settled in previous Tribunal decisions, citing examples like Shivam Export & Ors. Vs. CCE, SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE, and Jainsons (India). They contended that services provided within the port of export should be considered for refund, regardless of service provider classification.

3. The Tribunal found that services provided within the port of export should be considered as port services for refund benefits, following the settled decisions. Thus, the appellant was entitled to a refund for services falling under this category.

4. Regarding invoice requirements, the Tribunal stated that if debit notes contain necessary information as per Rule 4A, they should be considered valid for refund purposes. The matter was remanded to the original authority for verification of debit notes.

5. For CHA services, the Tribunal directed verification of invoices by the original authority to confirm the presence of necessary details. If the description of goods is found to be available, refund benefits should be extended to the appellant.

6. The rejection of refund claims for cleaning activity and technical inspection services was upheld since the appellant did not contest these rejections. The Tribunal found the lower authority's decision proper and justified in these cases.

7. The appeal was partly allowed, with refund for cleaning activity and technical inspection services deemed inadmissible, while the rest of the refund claims were considered admissible. The appeal was disposed of accordingly on 19.05.2017.