2017 (11) TMI 91 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 dated 06/10/2007 - input services - denial on the ground that the input services not confirming to the definition of Port service - Held that - the services namely, Inland Haulage Charges, Freight Outward Charges, B.L. Charges, Terminal Handling Charges etc. were used/utilized by the appellant within the port of export, facilitating exportation of the goods. Since admittedly, the said services were used within the port of export, irrespective of the classification of those services, the same should merit consideration as port service for the purpose of benefit of refund - refund allowed. With regard to refund claim of the fumigation service, there is agreement between the overseas purchaser and the appellant for undertaking fumigation services in respect of goods exported by the appellant. Since there is agreement between the appellant and the overseas purchaser of goods, the requirement of the Notification has been duly complied with - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Denial of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 for services used in exportation of goods.

Analysis:
The issue in these appeals pertains to the denial of a refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007 for taxable services utilized in the exportation of goods. The authorities rejected the refund claim on the basis that the services used by the appellant did not fall under the definition of port service as per the notification. The appellant contended that the services used within the port for exportation should be considered as port services regardless of their classification. The advocate cited previous tribunal decisions, including one involving the appellant, to support this argument. Additionally, the advocate highlighted agreements between the appellant and overseas buyers for fumigation services, asserting that such services should also qualify for the refund under the notification.

The appellant's representative argued that services used within the port for export purposes should be deemed as port services, making them eligible for the refund under the notification. The advocate referenced past tribunal decisions and agreements with overseas buyers to support the claim for refund on fumigation services. On the contrary, the respondent's representative reiterated the findings of the lower authorities denying the refund claim.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the tribunal found that the disputed services, such as Inland Haulage Charges and Terminal Handling Charges, were indeed used within the port for facilitating the export of goods. Despite the classification of these services, the tribunal deemed them eligible for the refund under the notification. Citing a previous decision involving the appellant, the tribunal extended the refund benefit for the disputed services. Regarding the fumigation services, the tribunal noted the agreements between the appellant and overseas buyers, concluding that the appellant met the requirements of the notification for claiming a refund on such services.

In light of the above analysis, the tribunal held that the impugned orders lacked merit. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, granting the refund for the disputed services used in the exportation of goods.