9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1137 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST - THC charges - bills of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges - whether denial of refund on the ground that the services are not port services and on the ground that proof of payment of service tax on GTA services and proper invoices not submitted justified? - reliance placed in the decision of Shivam Exports and others vs. CCE Jaipur 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/s. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Held that - the issue of the cases of Shivam Exports and SRF Ltd. is squarely similar to the case in hand and decision in the case apply. It was held in the cases that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges repo charges and Bill of lading charges and haulage charges are available to the exporters. Also it was held that if the documents produced are debit notes and giving all the details and particulars as required under Rule 4A of the STR 1994 the refund cannot be denied on the technical ground that the documents are not invoices but debit notes. Following the decision of the cases mentioned the refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Rejection of service tax refund on various charges under Port Services. 2. Non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services. 3. Non-submission of proper invoices. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of service tax refund on various charges under Port Services The appeal was filed against the rejection of a service tax refund amounting to Rs. 57,543 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The grounds for rejection included the charges such as THC charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, and repo charges not being covered under Port Services, as the service providers were registered under different categories and lacked proof of tax deposition under port services. The Ld. Advocate argued that previous judgments by CESTAT, including Shivam Exports & Ors., SRF Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, and Suncity Art Exports & Ors., had found similar grounds of rejection to be untenable. The Tribunal agreed with the consultant, citing the aforementioned judgments, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. Issue 2: Non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services Another ground for rejection was the non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis provided in the judgment. Issue 3: Non-submission of proper invoices The third ground for rejection was the non-submission of proper invoices. While this was mentioned as a reason for rejection, the judgment did not provide further details or analysis regarding this specific issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the precedents set by previous CESTAT judgments, overturning the rejection of the service tax refund on the grounds related to charges under Port Services. The judgment did not delve into the issues of non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services and non-submission of proper invoices in detail.
|
