Tribunal grants refund for Service Tax on moving containers & detention charges for export goods.

The Tribunal allowed the appellants' refund claim for Cenvat credit under Notification No. 41/2007 for the period January 2009 to March 2009. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a refund for the Service Tax paid on moving empty containers from the yard to the factory, following established precedents. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed that detention charges, being part of transportation expenses for export goods, were eligible for refund. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim for Cenvat credit under Notification No. 41/2007 - Transportation of empty containers - Detention charges - Admissibility of refund.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture and export of soya milk, filed a refund claim for Cenvat credit under Notification No. 41/2007 for the period January 2009 to March 2009. The Assistant Commissioner allowed most of the refund claim but rejected certain amounts related to Service Tax paid on the movement of empty containers and detention charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that the Service Tax on transportation of containers and detention charges was not admissible under the notification.

Regarding the transportation of empty containers, it was noted that previous judgments, including CCE, Madurai v. Tata Coffee Ltd., Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad, and Garware Polyester Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad, had established that the refund of Service Tax on such transportation for stuffing export goods is admissible. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a refund for the Service Tax paid on moving empty containers from the yard to the factory.

Concerning the detention charges, the appellants argued that such charges were part of the transportation expenses for export goods and should be refunded. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the charges were related to the transportation of export goods. Referring to the broad interpretation of "in relation to transportation of export goods," the Tribunal concluded that the detention charges incurred until the completion of transportation should be considered eligible for refund. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the refund claim for the detention charges as well.

In light of the above analysis, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 29-11-2012.

---