Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 170 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - Port Service - Inspection Certification Services - Customs House Agent service - Storage Warehousing Service - denial on the ground that these are not port services - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - denial also on the ground that the invoices issued by the J.M. Baxi having ambiguous description of service and evidence of payment of service has not been provided - Held that - Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 it has been clarified that the port services do not necessarily have to be port services but the same must be related to export of goods. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding services availed by the appellant for export of goods at the port of export, therefore, the refund claim cannot be denied on that ground - the certificate produced by the appellant shows payment of service tax has been made under the category of CHA and the said certificate also clarifies that the services are used for CHA services. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund of the port service - refund allowed. Refund claim - Inspection and Certification Service - denial on the ground that the invoices are not issued in respect of export of goods and stuffing of containers not form part of Inspection and Certification Services - Held that - the certificate issued by the Service provider clearly provides that the services were with respect to the export of goods - It is admitted that in the case in hand, the service tax has been borne by the appellant, therefore, the refund claim cannot be denied to the appellant on those grounds. Refund claim - Customs House and Agent Service - denial on the ground that all the required details were not provided in the invoices - Held that - circular dated 12.03.2009, clarifies that procedural violations should be dealt with at the end of the service provider and not the end of the service recipient i.e. appellant, therefore, it is fact on record that the appellant has received services and paid service tax thereon, therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund claim. Refund claim - Storage and warehousing service - denial on the ground that invoices does not show that the services has been used for export of goods - Held that - As it is fact on record that these services have been received for export of goods and not contraverted by any positive evidence, therefore, the refund claim cannot be denied on this ground. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claims under Notification 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 rejected for various services received in export of goods like Port Services, Inspection Certification Services, Customs House Agent, and Storage Warehousing Service. Analysis: (A) Port Services: The appellant's refund claim for port services was initially rejected due to alleged ambiguity in invoices and lack of evidence of service tax payment. However, it was clarified that services related to export of goods, not necessarily port services, are eligible for refund. The appellant had availed services for export of goods at the port, and evidence showed payment of service tax under CHA services. Thus, the appellant was found entitled to a refund for port services. (B) Inspection and Certification Service: The refund claim for inspection and certification services was denied citing issues with the invoices and the nature of services provided. However, the certificate from the service provider confirmed services were for export of goods. Precedents from relevant cases supported the appellant's claim as they had borne the expenses and paid service tax accordingly. As the appellant had paid the service tax, the refund claim for inspection and certification services could not be denied. (C) Customs House and Agent Service: Allegations were made regarding incomplete details in the invoices for customs house agent services. However, a circular clarified that procedural violations should be addressed at the service provider's end, not the appellant's end. Since the appellant had received the services and paid the service tax, they were deemed eligible for the refund claim related to customs house agent services. (D) Storage and Warehousing Service: The refund claim for storage and warehousing services was challenged on the basis that the invoices did not explicitly state the services were used for export of goods. Despite this, it was established that the services were indeed utilized for export purposes, and no evidence contradicted this fact. Therefore, the appellant's refund claim for storage and warehousing services was upheld. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claims, setting aside the previous orders. The appellant was deemed entitled to the refunds for the various services utilized in the export of goods.
|