2012 (12) TMI 139 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants refund on service tax for documentation charges under Clearing & Forwarding Agency Service.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s. Jollyboard Limited, granting them a refund of service tax on documentation charges under Clearing and Forwarding ... Refund claim - Documentation charges - Held that:- Service tax liability having been discharged on the documentation charges under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agency as shown in Suppliers invoice submitted by the appellant. - Following the decision in case of [Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd vs.CCE, 2007 (11) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] decided in favour of assessee Denial of refund claim of the service tax paid on account of documentation charges to the appellant is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed with consequential relief. Issues: Refund claim of service tax on documentation charges under Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service.The appellant, M/s. Jollyboard Limited, filed a refund claim for service tax, which was partially disallowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) on the grounds that the documentation charges service was not a taxable service eligible for input service tax credit. The appellant contended that the charges fell under Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service, and service tax had been paid accordingly by the service provider. The appellant argued that they were entitled to credit under Notification 17/2009, citing judgments of the Supreme Court in similar cases. The Revenue, however, opposed the claim, asserting that documentation charges were not specified as an input service under the Finance Act, 1994.The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that service tax had indeed been paid on the documentation charges under Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service as per the supplier's invoice. The Tribunal held that the officers at the appellant's factory, as the recipient of the services, had no jurisdiction to deny the refund claim based on the service not being covered under the said category. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. and MDS Switchgear Ltd., the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the denial of the refund claim was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.