2016 (10) TMI 581 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - services utilized for export purposes - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 port services entitled to refund claim - THC charges - bill of loading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges - CHA services - transportation of empty containers from port to factory charges - whether denial of refund claim justified on the ground that these services do not fall under the category of port services? - Held that - the issue stands decided in various cases M/s SRF Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-I 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI M/s. Shivam Exports M/s. Mecshot Blasting Equipment (P) Ltd. And M/s. Shree Ram Industries Versus CCE Jaipur 2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . As much as the issue stands decided the assessee would be entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the said services. In some of the cases the refund stands denied on the ground that the appellant have not submitted proper invoices and have only produced debit notes. The said issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal laying down that the said debit notes would be admissible documents for the purpose of refund. Matter remanded for grant of refund wherever held admissible - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid on various services utilized for export purposes.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed multiple appeals concerning the refund of service tax paid on services used for export purposes, as per notification number 41/2007-ST. The specific services in question included THC charges, bill of loading charges, origin haulage charges, repo charges, CHA services, and transportation of empty containers. The refund claims were initially rejected on the basis that these services did not fall under the category of port services specified in the notification.

The Tribunal referred to various precedents, such as SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I, M/s. Shivam Exports vs. CCE, Jaipur, and others, to establish that the assessee was indeed entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the mentioned services. The Tribunal held that the earlier decisions supported the admissibility of refund claims based on similar grounds.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed issues where refunds were denied due to the submission of debit notes instead of proper invoices. The Tribunal clarified that the debit notes were considered acceptable documents for refund purposes, aligning with previous decisions on the matter. Additionally, challenges related to the lack of proof of payment by the service provider to the Revenue were dismissed based on the Tribunal's consistent stance on such contentions.

In some instances, refunds were sought for cleaning activities and technical inspection services, which the appellants chose not to pursue. The judgment highlighted specific cases, like Shrinath Gum & Chemicals, where a portion of the demand was uncontested due to third-party export involvement.

Conclusively, the impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were remanded for the grant of refunds wherever deemed admissible. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of each issue raised concerning the refund of service tax on various export-related services, ensuring a fair and consistent application of relevant legal principles.