2012 (10) TMI 33 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal outcome: Refund granted for certain service tax charges, denied for fumigation. Compliance with Notification No. 41/2007 required.

The appeal filed by the Revenue regarding the refund of service tax paid on fumigation charges was allowed, while the appeal in respect of other services ... Refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST in respect of service tax paid on export goods - Revenue contested refund order on ground that refund of service tax paid on THC, Documentation charges, Repo charges, Examination charges, Customs Clearance charges etc. are not covered under Port Services but under the Business Auxiliary Services, which is not a specified service - refund of service tax on fumigation charges, should not have been allowed in the absence of submission of copy of written agreement between the exporter and the buyer - Held that:- Decision in the case of Ramdev Food Products (2010 (6) TMI 178 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ) squarely covers the issue and hence assessee is eligible for refund on THC, Repo charges, Documentation charges etc. However, in the absence of written agreement and in the absence of fulfillment of conditions mentioned in Notification No. 41/2007, refund on fumigation charges cannot be allowed - Decided partly in favor of Revenue Issues:Refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for service tax on export goods.Analysis:The judgment involves a refund claim filed by the respondent for service tax paid on export goods. The original adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim, which was later revised by the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after considering the submissions, sanctioned the refund claims. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order allowing the refund.The departmental representative argued that the Commissioner's revision order lacked detailed findings. He contended that certain charges like THC, Documentation charges, Repo charges, Examination charges, Customs Clearance charges were not covered under Port Services but under Business Auxiliary Services, which is not a specified service. Additionally, he mentioned that refund for fumigation charges should not have been allowed without a copy of the written agreement between the exporter and the buyer.The respondent's authorized representative relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Ramdev Food Products to support the admissibility of refund for charges objected by the Revenue. Regarding fumigation charges, it was argued that providing fumigation was a legal requirement for the goods supplied, hence insisting on a written agreement was unnecessary.The presiding Member considered the submissions from both sides. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products was found to cover the issues raised by the Revenue, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was eligible for refund on charges like THC, Repo charges, Documentation charges, etc. However, concerning fumigation charges, the presiding Member referred to Notification No. 41/2007, which specified conditions for granting a refund. Since the written agreement and accreditation by a competent statutory authority were not fulfilled, refund for fumigation charges was disallowed.In summary, the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding the refund of service tax paid on fumigation charges was allowed, while the appeal in respect of other services was rejected.