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 414 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 41/2007 ST - denial on the ground that appellant did not supply ARE-1 and shipping bills (major proof of export documents) to the sanctioning authority nor to the appellate authority - Held that: - appellant states that self attested copies of ARE-1 documents were submitted with the refund claim. Further, he states that Copies of shipping bills received from Head Office were filed subsequently in reply to show cause notice. Further, Link chart of exports vis-`-vis input services availed for each ARE-1 was also filed with defence reply to the original authority - appellant had filed the documents, as required - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant had not supplied documents evidencing payment of service tax on the specified services - Held that: - the Board has clarified that invoices/bills issued by the suppliers of taxable services are sufficient evidence that services are taxable services and refund claim should be processed based on input invoices/bills/challans showing service tax charged by the service providers-as clarified in para-4 of Circular No.106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008 - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed - Held that: - appellant had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is available in the appeal paper book, stating that they have not availed Cenvat credit during the period in question. The ld. counsel also states that the appellant was availing Central Excise Exemption under the provisions of Notification No. 30/2004 CE under which they were entitled to clear their goods without Central Excise duty, subject to the condition that they do not take Cenvat credit. The ld. counsel stated that the benefit of said Notification No. 30/2004 CE have never been disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, states that this ground of rejection is not tenable - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not submit any evidence that the service provider were authorized by port trust or other port to render the services - Held that: - Board Circular No. 112, clarifies that the granting of refund to exporters on taxable services that he receives and uses for export, do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted, in such cases, if otherwise in order - refund allowed. Refund claim - transport of goods by rail that is the services of transporting the container from the ICD, by Container Corporation of India (Concor) to the Gateway Port - rejection on the ground that the appellant failed to certify the conditions of the services by Rail - Held that: - The appellant have taken us through the sample invoice of Concor in the appeal paper book, in which Concor have given the container number, cost of freight and the cost of handling charges. The name of the appellant is also there - this ground also is untenable, as the container number given on invoice for freight is found co-relatable with export documents - refund allowed. Refund claim - CHA services - it is alleged that appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of CHA Services as given in serial No. 13 of the notification - Held that: - The ld. counsel have taken me through the sample invoices of the CHA, on record, wherein we find that bill of lading number and date, export container number, vessel name, port of loading, port of delivery, description of export goods etc., is given - all the relevant information is available for allowing the refund of CHA Services received - refund allowed. Refund claim - Handling of export containers within the port - refund is not admissible under category of port services - Held that: - Services provided within the port for export of goods, are covered at Sl. No. (2) of the table, without any conditions. Further, he states that the registration of service providers in a different category (CHA) is not material for grant of refund in the eligible category - refund allowed. Refund claim - C & F Service - Held that: - From the bill it is evident that the services have been provided in the nature of terminal handling charges and documentation charges - these services are eligible services at the same are also provided by the CHA or C & F and also fall under the port services. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to refund for this service. Refund claim - GTA Services - Held that: - the GRN issued by the transporter shows that the goods have been packed in container. Further, such details are co-relatable with the let export order and the invoice of the appellant - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|