2013 (11) TMI 1685 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Service Tax refund claims partly allowed on courier & GTO charges; CHA service refund denial upheld.

The appellant's claims for refund of Service Tax on courier charges and Goods Transport Operators (GTO) service charges were remanded for further review ... - Issues involved: Refund claims for Service Tax paid on specified services used for export under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. denied on grounds related to courier charges, Customs House Agency (CHA) service, and Goods Transport Operators (GTO) Service.Refund of Courier Charges: Invoices included local and foreign courier services. Local courier service not linked to exports, hence not eligible for refund. Foreign courier service invoices lacked Importer Export Code (IEC) of exporter, leading to rejection. Appellant argued non-mentioning of IEC number was procedural and provided evidence of goods exported. Tribunal found technical infractions not sufficient to deny refund if evidence shows goods were exported, remanding the matter for further consideration.Customs House Agency (CHA) Service: Notification required invoice issued by CHA for refund eligibility. Appellant's invoice issued by Clearing & Forwarding Agent, not CHA, leading to rejection of refund. Tribunal upheld rejection as conditions for refund not met by appellant.Goods Transport Operators (GTO) Service: Notification mandated lorry receipts to specify export invoice numbers. Lorry receipts submitted by appellant did not meet this condition, resulting in denial of refund. Tribunal found technical infraction not enough to deny refund if evidence proves goods were exported, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.Conclusion: Appellant's claims for refund of Service Tax on courier charges and GTO service charges remanded for further review with the condition of providing documentary evidence linking refund claims to exports. Refund denial for CHA service upheld. Appeals partly allowed through remand.