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 492 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Transport of Goods - denial on the ground that the condition of the Notification has not been fulfilled and not possible to determine whether the services in question has been used for export of goods or not - Held that: - the appellant is able to co-relate with the services of the transportation for used in export of goods - the transportation charges from port to their factory is covered under Transport of Goods Service availed by the appellant for export of goods, therefore, the refund claim for Transport of Goods cannot be denied to the appellant - refund allowed. Refund claim - Terminal handling Charge - Bill of Lading Charges - denial on the ground that these are not port services - Held that: - the services received at port by the appellant is covered under Port Services and it is admitted fact that the Terminal Handling Charges and Bill of lading Charges has been paid at the port by the appellant, therefore, the same are covered under port services - refund allowed. Refund claim - Customs House Agency Service - denial on the ground that the said service is not covered under the Notification - Held that: - this Tribunal in the case of Sopariwala Exports [2015 (9) TMI 940 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that the Customs House Agency service received by the appellant for export of goods is entitled for refund claim - refund allowed. Refund claim - Duty Drawback - The allegation of the Revenue is that as the appellant is claiming drawback claim against the export of the goods, therefore, refund on the service tax paid for the services received for export of goods are not entitled - Held that: - the said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mittal International and others [2017 (3) TMI 1512 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] wherein this Tribunal held that the drawback Rules are not applicable for the input services received for export of goods which only includes input services used in manufacturing or processing of export goods. Admittedly, the services in question have been received by the appellant after manufacturing of goods and the same is not included while calculating the drawback claim - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the invoices issued by the services provider has not having a details as per Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim - Held that: - vide CBEC Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, it has been clarified that procedural violations should be dealt with at the end of the service provider and not the end of the service recipient i.e. exporter. Moreover, in this case, the ld. Commissioner (A) held that the appellant has been able to co-relate the services received by the appellant in the course of their export of goods, therefore, the clarification given by the CBEC Circular dated 11.12.2008 has been met out. In that circumstance, the refund claim cannot be denied to the appellant. The refund claim sought to be denied on the ground that in the invoices, the address of Karnal unit of the appellant has been mentioned. I find that the appellant has produced the certificate issued by the service provider that they have given wrong address of their Karnal unit instead of their unit located at Gurgaon and certified that the services has been provided at their Gurgaon unit, therefore, merely on that ground the invoices have been issued in the name of the Karnal Unit, the refund claim cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|