2012 (6) TMI 245 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Upholds Export Service Refund Decision; Rejects Fumigation Charges

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow the refund claim for services related to export, such as C&F ... Rejection of refund claim of Service Tax on service of C&F agent, transportation of goods, terminal charges etc. – Held that:- Sample invoices produced by assessee gives the details of shipping bill number, date of shipping bill, name of the party, the name of the port to which the goods are to be exported, name of the vessel etc. , thus to be concluded that the invoices can be linked with the export goods and therefore the refund cannot be rejected on this ground – against revenue. Photo-copies of the invoices were produced and the original copies were not produced – Held that:- CBE&C vide Circular No.112/06/2009-ST, dt.12.03.2009 has clarified that normally certified copies of the documents should be accepted and it is only in the case of in-depth enquiry that the original documents needs to be verified - Since the requirement is satisfied appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit. Rejection of refund claim on fumigation charges, a specialized process for cleaning the containers - Held that:- As decided in RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, AHMEDABAD [2011 (3) TMI 1256 (Tri)]there has to be a written agreement between the buyer and the seller about testing and analysis of the product – as the assessee fairly agree that they do not have a written agreement, the benefit of refund would not be admissible – against assessee. Issues: Refund claim of Service Tax paid on various services including C&F agent, fumigation service, transportation of goods, terminal charges; Commissioner's decision on revising the refund claim; Eligibility for refund based on documentation compliance; Refund claim rejection on the grounds of fumigation charges.Refund Claim and Commissioner's Decision: The appellant filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid on services like C&F agent, fumigation, transportation, and terminal charges. The original adjudicating authority approved a refund of Rs.3,21,049/-, but discrepancies were later noted during an audit. The Commissioner, under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, proposed revising the order and issued a Show Cause Notice. However, after reviewing submissions, the Commissioner decided not to revise the original order, leading to the Revenue appealing this decision.Documentation Compliance for Refund Eligibility: The Commissioner upheld the original adjudicating authority's order based on substantial compliance with Notification No.41/2007-ST regarding the services related to export of goods. The invoices from service providers like C&F agents and fumigation agencies were found to be in order, linking services to export goods. The Commissioner also accepted photo-copies of invoices as per Circular No.112/06/2009-ST, stating that certified copies are generally sufficient unless an in-depth inquiry is required.Fumigation Charges Refund Rejection: The Commissioner allowed the refund claim for services related to export but rejected the claim for fumigation charges. Fumigation, being a specialized cleaning process for export goods, required a written agreement between the buyer and seller as per previous tribunal decisions. Since no written agreement was provided, the refund claim for fumigation charges was disallowed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal regarding fumigation charges was allowed, while the appeal for other services was rejected.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad highlights the key issues, the Commissioner's decision on refund claim revision, documentation compliance for refund eligibility, and the rejection of the refund claim for fumigation charges due to lack of a written agreement.