2018 (1) TMI 165 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Terminal Handling charges - GTA by Road - CHA service - Supply of Intangible goods service - Port services - EC and SHEC - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Belapur v. Pratap Re-rolling Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 814 - CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and allowed the refund of service tax on terminal handling charges (THC) incurred in respect of goods exported. In the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. v. CCE Goa 2014 (12) TMI 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the Tribunal had allowed the refund claim on port service. In the case of Chidambaram Ship Care Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT 2014 (2) TMI 1181 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Hon ble Madras High Court held that statutory provisions relating to ports in allied acts cannot override taxation provisions. It has also been held that stevedoring services in a major or minor port is liable to service tax as port service. In the case of Tumkar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa 2015 (12) TMI 21 - CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the refund of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid during export of goods. The appellant is entitled to refund of service tax paid on all the issues except the issues relating to GTA service and Supply of Intangible goods service which are required to be verified by the lower authority - appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of service tax for export of goods under Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.2007.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid on taxable services for the export of goods. The Adjudicating Authority approved a partial refund, rejecting the remaining amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued extensively, presenting a table detailing the rejection of the refund claim for various services.

The rejection reasons included lack of evidence correlating GTA services with the export of goods, inadequacy of stock register as proof, insufficiency of details on lorry receipts, non-submission of necessary documents, and services not approved as port services. The Revenue's representative highlighted discrepancies in the refund amount requested by the appellant and the amount proposed for rejection in the Show Cause Notice.

The Tribunal referred to precedents where refunds were allowed for specific services related to export activities. These cases emphasized that services received for export purposes qualify for refunds under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal also cited judgments supporting the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid during the export of goods.

In light of the precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for most services except GTA service and supply of tangible goods service, which required further verification. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to verify documents related to these services before granting the refund.

Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting the refund claim for most services while remanding the verification of specific services to the adjudicating authority. The decision was pronounced in the open court, concluding the proceedings.