2010 (5) TMI 210 - AT - Service Tax

Notification No. 41/2007-ST dt. 6.10.2007- whether the respondent is entitled for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dt. 6.10.2007 as amended and whether the document submitted by the respondent along with refund claim was valid for claiming the refund of service tax? Commissioner (Appeals) held that the services provided to the Appellant are nothing but Cargo Handling Services and simply the change of name claimed by the Appellant as Handling of Container will not bar the Appellant from claiming refund. Held that- . The Commissioner (Appeal) has dealt the issue in detail and there is no infirmity in the impugned order and within the provisions of law. Hence, the impugned order is legal and proper. Hence, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 41/2007-ST
2. Validity of documents submitted for claiming refund of service tax

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around determining whether the respondent was eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 41/2007-ST and if the submitted documents were valid for claiming a refund of service tax. The respondents filed a refund claim based on a bill from a service provider, indicating service tax claimed from the respondent by the service provider. However, it was noted that the service tax was paid by another party, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the claim. The Revenue challenged the order allowing the refund, arguing that the invoices were issued by the party who paid the service tax, while the actual service provider did not raise the invoice, questioning the legality of the refund.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and found that the refund claim for Cargo Handling Services and Port Services was unjustly rejected by the lower authority. The Commissioner observed that the services provided were indeed Cargo Handling Services, despite the appellant referring to them as Handling of Container. Regarding Port Services, the documents were deemed invalid due to a discrepancy where one agency paid the service tax claimed by another. The Commissioner highlighted that the appellant had not paid the service tax directly, but technical reasons should not be grounds for denying the refund. Additionally, a specific amount related to Port Services was disallowed beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice, leading to the lower authority's decision being deemed untenable. The Commissioner concluded that the respondent's right to claim the refund was valid under the law and upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 41/2007-ST and the validity of documents for claiming a service tax refund. The decision emphasized the importance of accurately assessing the nature of services provided and the legitimacy of refund claims, ultimately upholding the respondent's right to claim the refund as per the law.