2023 (3) TMI 441 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods - correlation of export documents with the export shipping bill - non submission of RCMC Certificate - classification of port services and technical inspection and certification service. Correlation of export documents with the export shipping bill - HELD THAT - It is found that the appellant have submitted all the documents and A1 form before the Adjudicating Authority as well as before the Commissioner (Appeals). the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point discussed in detail that the A1 form bearingthe details of shipping bill on the basis of which the corelation was established. the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in form A-1 submitted by the respondent they had provided the names of the service provider as per the shipping bill as well as the corresponding service tax invoice. On the perusal of such A1 form, the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the respondent had corelated the shipping bills with the invoices issued by the service provider. In view of this, the objection of the revenue on this ground is not sustainable. Non submission of RCMC Certificate - HELD THAT - It is undisputed position that there was no Export Promotion Council sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce or the Ministry of Textiles for promotion of export of metallurgical coke, when this be so then there is no need of RCMC certificate for sanction of a refund claim. Classification of port services and technical inspection and certification service - revenue has objected that looking to the nature of water front royalty charges and weigh bridge charges the same having no nexus to a vessel or goods - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that for these services the Mundra port and SEZ Ltd raised the invoices in the favour of respondent and classifying the same under port services. It is the settled position of law that the classification of service at the recipient end cannot be questioned therefore, the services classified under port service attained finality and the consequential benefit should go to the assessee. Similarly in the case of technical inspection and certification service invoices for various services were raised by M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Ltd under the service tax head of technical inspection and certification service therefore, it cannot be disputed that the service received by the respondent is different from technical inspection and certification service. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) considering the fact of this case rightly extended the refund to the respondent. The issues raised by the Department have been considered in the various judgments. In the case of UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR VERSUS M/S. ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES (P) LTD. 2019 (1) TMI 73 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court allowed the refund under identical Notification No 41/2007-ST wherein it was observed that the Tribunal correctly holding that irrespective classification service, if service are provided within port they should qualify as port service for the purpose of benefit of refund - In the case of M/S. MACRO POLYMERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE AHMEDABAD 2010 (6) TMI 257 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD this Tribunal held that refund under Notification No. 41/2007 is admissible on terminal handling charges even though same is not specified under the notification but for the reason that the said service is provided by the port authority. The ld. Commissioner (appeals) has passed a very reasoned order by giving proper finding on each issue arising out of the order-in-original - there are no infirmity in the impugned order, hence the same is upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. Corelation of relevant shipping bills with export invoices. Submission of RCMC certificate. Classification of services under port services and technical inspection and certification services for refund eligibility.

Analysis:
The respondent applied for a refund of service tax paid on input services used for exporting goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the respondent failed to correlate shipping bills with export invoices and did not submit the RCMC certificate. They contended that certain services claimed for refund had no nexus to goods or vessels. The Revenue challenged the refund eligibility based on these grounds.

The Respondent argued that all relevant documents were submitted to establish the correlation between exported goods and shipping bills, which the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider. They also clarified that the RCMC certificate was not required for export of metallurgical coke. The Respondent maintained that the services were correctly classified under port services and technical inspection, citing various judgments to support their position.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had thoroughly addressed the Revenue's objections. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had adequately correlated shipping bills with invoices using the A1 form. The absence of an RCMC certificate was deemed irrelevant due to the absence of a relevant Export Promotion Council. The Tribunal upheld the classification of services under port services and technical inspection, emphasizing that the recipient's classification could not be questioned. The Tribunal also referenced past judgments supporting the eligibility of similar services for refund under relevant notifications.

Considering the detailed analysis and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and supported by legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the order was well-reasoned, finding no flaws in the decision-making process. Therefore, the refund claim was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.