Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 765 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - terminal handling charges - Bill of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges - CHA services - N/N. 41/07-ST dated 6.10.07 - whether the rejection justified on the ground that the services cannot be considered as port services? - Held that: - the issue stand decided in the case SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I [2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and the decision relied upon where it was held that exporter should not be unduly burdened with a condition to establish that the service provider was registered under port services and the disputed issue is settled in favour of the assessee. Proper invoices not submitted and it is only the debit notes on the basis of which, the refund of Service Tax claimed - Held that: - the Revenue's allegation that nothing was produced on record to show the proof of payment of service tax by the service provider, cannot be appreciated inasmuch as it is not the obligation of the service recipient to deposit the service tax and having paid to the service provider and it is for the service provider to show the proof of payment of service tax. No such requirement stands specified in the notification in question and Board has also clarified that it is sufficient to show that the amount of service tax stand paid to the service provider. Air services - not covered in the notification - Held that: - the same were actually not air services but courier services. The said services obtained by them were courier services, which at further intimation, transported through air. Courier services being specified as one of the service inputs is admissible to the assessee. The fact whether the service tax was relatable to courier service or not is required to be examined and for the purpose I remand the matter in respect of M/s. Johari Digital Health Care Ltd. on the said issue only for examining the aspect. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant - matter remanded for M/s. Johari Digital Health Care Ltd.
|