2023 (10) TMI 743 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - export of goods - CHA Services - Road Transport - Export Commission Agent - Terminal Handling Charges - the requirement of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 not properly appreciated. CHA Services - rejection on the ground that the name of the CHA on the shipping bill is different then invoice submitted for refund - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the Revenue has not disputed the services in such exports. Moreover, in the appellant s own case, the Tribunal in M/S WINSOME YARNS LIMITED VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH 2017 (6) TMI 683 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH allowed the refund of service tax paid on CHA Services - in the case of EVERGREEN SUPPLIERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. 2007 (10) TMI 134 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , it has been held that there is no restriction in the service tax law or in the Notification which restricts the activity of sub-contracting by CHA - the appellants are entitled to refund of service tax paid on CHA Services. Road Transport - rejection on the ground that the invoices submitted for refund is of different entity then the entity issuing consignment note - HELD THAT - The Ld. Commissioner rejected the refund claim of service tax on transportation of goods on the sole ground that the appellant has not furnished any documents which would show that the charges were for transportation of goods from ICD to port of export whereas as per the appellant, they have furnished all these documents with the invoices issued by the service provider at the time of filing the refund - the appellant is entitled to refund of service tax on GTA Services paid by them subject to verification by the lower authorities. Export Commission Agent - HELD THAT - As per the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, it is not necessary that the exporter must provide the agreement or contract rather any other document showing the payment of commission to foreign agent is sufficient to claim refund of service tax. Though, the appellant has filed copies of the agreement/contract and other document but the same was not considered by the revenue authorities - the appellant has satisfied the conditions laid down in the Notification and is entitled to refund of service tax subject to verification by the lower authorities. Terminal Handling Charges - rejection on the ground that the said service is not a prescribed service under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - HELD THAT - The terminal handling services are rendered for handling the export containers at the port of exports. These services are rendered within the port area by various service providers and thus the same are in the nature of port service - This issue has been decided by various benches of the Tribunal wherein refund was granted in respect of service tax paid in respect of terminal handling services under the said notification - reliance can be placed in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS AIA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. 2015 (1) TMI 1044 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . The matters are remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification and sanctioning of the refund claim filed by the appellant - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals against the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to service tax paid on various services used for export of goods. The key issues include discrepancies in documentation for CHA services, road transport services, export commission agent services, and terminal handling charges.

Issue 1: CHA Services
The rejection of refund on CHA services was based on discrepancies in documentation, specifically the difference in names on the shipping bill and invoice submitted for refund. The Tribunal allowed the refund in a previous case involving similar services, emphasizing that there is no restriction on sub-contracting by CHAs.

Issue 2: Road Transport Services
Refund for GTA services was rejected due to discrepancies in invoices. The Tribunal allowed the refund in a previous case, noting that the service provider acted as a pure agent for the appellant. The appellant's submission of documents was deemed sufficient for refund, despite the Commissioner's rejection based on lack of specific documentation.

Issue 3: Export Commission Agent Services
The refund for services provided by a commission agent abroad was rejected for non-compliance with document submission requirements. However, the Tribunal clarified that the appellant met the conditions of the notification and should be entitled to a refund upon verification by lower authorities.

Issue 4: Terminal Handling Charges
Refund for terminal handling charges was denied, citing the service as not prescribed under the relevant notification. The Tribunal disagreed with this rejection, citing precedents where similar services were granted refunds. Terminal handling services were deemed akin to port services, making them eligible for a refund under the notification.

The Tribunal remanded all matters back to the adjudicating authority for verification and sanctioning of the refund claims, based on the findings and precedents discussed in the judgment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.