2023 (9) TMI 814 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax - input services - Terminal Handling Services - GTA Service - CHA Services - HELD THAT - These services have been rendered for handling the export containers at the port of exports and they fall in the nature of port services. Further, the Terminal Handling Services have been held to be specified services and the appellant is entitled to refund of the same in view of the various decision in M/S TRIDENT LIMITED (FORMERLY ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LIMITED) VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH-I 2017 (6) TMI 472 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH . GTA Services - HELD THAT - The GTA service has been received from third party transporter for transporting the stuffed containers with seal from the factory of the appellant to ICD/CFS or to the port of export. CHA services - HELD THAT - The CHA Services are specifically covered and the appellant has furnished the bills issued by the CHA containing the details of the payment. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal challenges the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding service tax paid on specific services utilized for exporting goods.

Terminal Handling Services:
The appellant claimed a refund for services like Clearing and Forwarding Agents services, Transportation of goods, and Customs House Agents services. The original authority rejected the refund claim, alleging a lack of correlation between the input services and the export of goods, and insufficient documentation. The appellant argued that Terminal Handling Services fall under port services and are eligible for refund under Notification No. 41/2007. Citing various judicial precedents, the appellant contended that the impugned order failed to appreciate relevant facts and legal precedents.

GTA Services:
Regarding GTA Services, the appellant received services from third-party transporters to transport goods directly from the factory to the port of export without intermediate storage. The appellant provided evidence such as bills, consignment notes, and lorry receipts to support the claim for refund on GTA Services.

CHA Services:
The appellant also availed Customs House Agents (CHA) services, supported by bills containing specific details related to the export consignments. The appellant argued that there is no restriction on subcontracting by CHA services under the relevant Notification. Citing legal precedent, the appellant contended that the CHA services are covered by the Notification, and the appellant submitted invoices mentioning the service tax amount.

Decision:
After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that Terminal Handling Services, GTA Services, and CHA Services were eligible for refund as per the applicable Notification and legal precedents cited. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal of the appellant. The decision was pronounced on 18.09.2023.