9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 492 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Transport of Goods - denial on the ground that the condition of the Notification has not been fulfilled and not possible to determine whether the services in question has been used for export of goods or not - Held that - the appellant is able to co-relate with the services of the transportation for used in export of goods - the transportation charges from port to their factory is covered under Transport of Goods Service availed by the appellant for export of goods, therefore, the refund claim for Transport of Goods cannot be denied to the appellant - refund allowed. Refund claim - Terminal handling Charge - Bill of Lading Charges - denial on the ground that these are not port services - Held that - the services received at port by the appellant is covered under Port Services and it is admitted fact that the Terminal Handling Charges and Bill of lading Charges has been paid at the port by the appellant, therefore, the same are covered under port services - refund allowed. Refund claim - Customs House Agency Service - denial on the ground that the said service is not covered under the Notification - Held that - this Tribunal in the case of Sopariwala Exports 2015 (9) TMI 940 - CESTAT MUMBAI held that the Customs House Agency service received by the appellant for export of goods is entitled for refund claim - refund allowed. Refund claim - Duty Drawback - The allegation of the Revenue is that as the appellant is claiming drawback claim against the export of the goods, therefore, refund on the service tax paid for the services received for export of goods are not entitled - Held that - the said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mittal International and others 2017 (3) TMI 1512 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH wherein this Tribunal held that the drawback Rules are not applicable for the input services received for export of goods which only includes input services used in manufacturing or processing of export goods. Admittedly, the services in question have been received by the appellant after manufacturing of goods and the same is not included while calculating the drawback claim - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the invoices issued by the services provider has not having a details as per Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim - Held that - vide CBEC Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, it has been clarified that procedural violations should be dealt with at the end of the service provider and not the end of the service recipient i.e. exporter. Moreover, in this case, the ld. Commissioner (A) held that the appellant has been able to co-relate the services received by the appellant in the course of their export of goods, therefore, the clarification given by the CBEC Circular dated 11.12.2008 has been met out. In that circumstance, the refund claim cannot be denied to the appellant. The refund claim sought to be denied on the ground that in the invoices, the address of Karnal unit of the appellant has been mentioned. I find that the appellant has produced the certificate issued by the service provider that they have given wrong address of their Karnal unit instead of their unit located at Gurgaon and certified that the services has been provided at their Gurgaon unit, therefore, merely on that ground the invoices have been issued in the name of the Karnal Unit, the refund claim cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Refund claim rejection under Notification No.41/2007-ST - Transport of Goods refund claim denial - Port Services refund claim denial - Customs House Agency Service refund claim denial - Allegation of claiming drawback against export goods - Fulfillment of conditions of Rule 4(A) of Service Tax Rules Refund Claim Rejection under Notification No.41/2007-ST: The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST for services including Transport of Goods, Port Service, and Customs House Agency Services. The denial was based on the grounds that the conditions of the Notification were not met, and the services of Terminal Handling Charges and Bill of Lading Services were not considered within the scope. Additionally, it was argued that since the appellant claimed drawback of duty on export goods, they were not entitled to the refund claim. The appellant was also accused of not fulfilling the condition of Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, particularly in cases where invoices were addressed to the Karnal unit instead of the Gurgaon unit. Transport of Goods Refund Claim Denial: The refund claim for Transport of Goods was initially denied due to alleged non-fulfillment of Notification conditions and uncertainty regarding the use of services for exporting goods. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant was able to establish a connection between transportation services and the export of goods. The appellant provided a certificate for payment of service tax on transportation services, and it was clarified that the movement of empty containers from the port to the factory for stuffing goods and subsequent re-transportation to the port constituted transportation of goods for export. As a result, the refund claim for Transport of Goods was allowed. Port Services Refund Claim Denial: The denial of refund claims for Terminal Handling Charges and Bill of Lading Charges under Port Services was overturned by the Tribunal. It was established that these charges were indeed part of the services received at the port and were covered under Port Services. Therefore, the appellant was deemed entitled to a refund claim for these charges under Port Services. Customs House Agency Service Refund Claim Denial: The Revenue argued that Customs House Agency Service was not covered under the Notification. However, citing a previous Tribunal case, it was determined that Customs House Agency services received by the appellant for exporting goods were eligible for a refund claim. The Tribunal found sufficient correlation between the export consignment and the services provided, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a refund claim for Customs House Agency Service. Allegation of Claiming Drawback Against Export Goods: The Revenue alleged that since the appellant claimed drawback against the export of goods, they were not entitled to a refund on the service tax paid for services related to exporting goods. However, referencing a previous Tribunal decision, it was clarified that services received for export of goods were not included in the drawback claim calculation. Therefore, the appellant's refund claim could not be rejected based on claiming drawback against specified services. Fulfillment of Conditions of Rule 4(A) of Service Tax Rules: The refund claim was challenged on the grounds that the invoices did not comply with Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, leading to doubts about the entitlement to the refund claim. However, it was noted that procedural violations should be addressed at the service provider's end, not the recipient's end. The Tribunal found that the appellant could establish the connection between the services received and the export of goods, satisfying the requirements despite discrepancies in the invoicing details. Additionally, the issue of incorrect address on invoices was resolved by providing a certificate confirming the correct location of service provision. Consequently, the refund claims were allowed, and the appeals filed by the appellants were upheld.
|
