2017 (7) TMI 61 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - THC charges - bill of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges etc. - denial on the ground that the services are not port services - Held that - the services in relation to THC charges bill of lading charges origin haulage charges repo charges etc. were used/utilized by the appellant within the port for exportation of the goods. Since the services were used by the appellant within the port irrespective of the classification of those services the refund benefit should be available in terms of Notification dated 06.10.2007 - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial also on the ground that debit note is not the proper document in terms of Rule 4 A and 4 B of the Service Tax Rules 1994 - Held that - sample copy of debit note contains the reference of the container shipping bill No. description of service value and the service tax registration No. of the service provider etc. Since the said information are corelatable with the export documents I am of the view that refund benefit cannot be denied for the reason that the debit note is not the prescribed document under the Service Tax Statute - the matter should go back to the Original Authority for verification of the documents to be submitted by the appellant - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 based on various grounds including improper invoices, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax, missing details in invoices, and lack of proper documentation for certain services.

Analysis:
1. The rejection of the refund claim was primarily based on several reasons, including the services not falling under Port Services, improper invoices, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax, missing details in invoices, and lack of proper documentation for certain services. The appellant's refund claim on THC charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, and repo charges was denied due to the services not being classified under Port Services and the absence of proof of tax deposit under port services. Similarly, issues arose with the submission of proper invoices, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA Services, missing descriptions of goods in CHA invoices, and lack of IEC No. and export invoice no. in courier services invoices.

2. The appellant argued that similar refund claims were allowed in previous cases by the Tribunal under the Notification dated 06.10.2007. The consultant cited specific cases where refund benefits were granted for services similar to those in the present dispute. However, the Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order and relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasizing the need to establish the correlation of services for the export of goods.

3. The Tribunal found that services like THC charges, bill of lading charges, origin haulage charges, and repo charges were utilized by the appellant within the port for exporting goods, making them eligible for refund benefits under the Notification dated 06.10.2007. Regarding the proper documentation for claiming a refund, the Tribunal noted that although debit notes were not the prescribed documents under the Service Tax Rules, the information contained in the submitted debit notes was sufficient to correlate with export documents, warranting a verification by the Original Authority for potential refund approval.

4. The Tribunal decided not to interfere with the rejection of refund claims for cleaning activity and technical inspection and certification services since the appellant was not pressing for refunds on those services. Consequently, the refund claims related to these services were deemed liable for rejection. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with instructions for verification of documents and potential refund approval if the required references were found.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision and reasoning in each aspect of the case.