Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges was admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. despite the service provider's registration/classification and the absence of verification of the provider's service registration.
Analysis: The invoices showed payment of service tax on terminal handling charges, but they did not conclusively establish the head under which the provider discharged tax. The clarification issued by the Board stated that refund to exporters for taxable services used for export does not require verification of the service provider's registration certificate, and that procedural violations by the service provider are to be dealt with separately. On that basis, the absence of proof that the tax was discharged under business support service could not justify rejection of the refund claim when the exporter claimed the service as port service and the claim was otherwise in order.
Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and the rejection was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was held entitled to refund of service tax on terminal handling charges for export-related services.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund under the export-service notification cannot be denied merely because the service provider's registration covers a different service, if the tax has been paid on a service used for export and the claim is otherwise in order.