2017 (7) TMI 991 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 10.06.2007 - rejection on account of time bar - Held that - the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Gran Overseas Ltd. 2017 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein this Tribunal has held that the time limit prescribed in notification issued from time to time is to supplement the provision of mere act - the clarifications given by the CBEC vide Circular dated 12.03.2009 is merely a clarification and the same is applicable retrospectively - the refund claims filed by the appellants are within period of limitation - refund allowed. Refund claim - clearing and forwarding services - CHA Services - denial on the ground that the services are not port services - Held that - these services are related to the CHA services and not clearing and forwarding services and they have wrongly mentioned as clearing and forwarding services. It is fact on record that these services received from the CHA - refund allowed. Refund claim - services relating to collection of foreign exchanges - Held that - the service tax was collected by the bank for realization of export proceeds and vouchers were issued by the bank. Therefore, there is no dispute about export of goods and charges collected by the bank for realization of export proceeds. Thus, refund claim is not deniable for the procedural lapses, if any and the same should be allowed. Refund claim - cleaning services - technical testing and analysis services - Held that - since the appellant is not pressing for refund on this ground, the same is rejected. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST.
2. Authorization of service providers by port authorities.
3. Inclusion of Clearing and Forwarding Services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST.
4. Eligibility of Courier Services for refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time-barred Refund Claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST:
The appellants filed refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 10.06.2007 for the period December 2007 on 20.03.2008. The claims were initially rejected as they were filed beyond the prescribed two-month period. However, the CBEC Circular Order No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 clarified that refunds are admissible if filed within six months from the close of the quarter. This Tribunal, referencing the case of Gran Overseas Ltd., determined that the time limit under Notification No. 41/2007 is a procedural requirement and substantial benefits cannot be denied. The Tribunal concluded that the CBEC clarification applies retrospectively, thus the refund claims are within the period of limitation and allowed the refund claims, remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority to verify compliance with other conditions stipulated in the Notification.

2. Authorization of Service Providers by Port Authorities:
The appellants' refund claims were rejected on the grounds that the service providers were not authorized by port authorities. The Tribunal referred to the case of M/s SRF Ltd., which clarified that many ports do not issue specific authorization letters to service providers. The CBEC Circular dated 12.03.2009 stated that granting refunds does not require verification of the service provider's registration. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the service provider is not required to be authorized by port authorities, making the services received at the port eligible for refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007.

3. Inclusion of Clearing and Forwarding Services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST:
The appellants' claims for Clearing and Forwarding Services were rejected as these services were not included in Notification No. 41/2007. The appellants contended that these services were related to CHA services and were wrongly labeled. The Tribunal, referencing the case of East India Minerals Ltd., found that the objective of the exemption notification is to remove the burden of service tax from export goods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants are entitled to refund claims for CHA services under Notification No. 41/2007, as the services were indeed received from CHA.

4. Eligibility of Courier Services for Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST:
The appellants' refund claims for Courier Services were denied due to procedural lapses such as the absence of IEC number and export invoice number on the courier agency's invoice. The Tribunal referred to the case of Krishna International Exim, which allowed refunds despite such procedural lapses, as long as the export of goods and associated charges were verifiable. The Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to refund claims for Courier Services under Notification No. 41/2007.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the refund claims filed by the appellants, subject to verification of compliance with other conditions stipulated in Notification No. 41/2007. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for further verification.

← Previous Next →