2016 (12) TMI 993 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Grants Refund of Service Tax on Various Services under /2007

M/s. Durga Marble & Minerals Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-II

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a refund of service tax paid on various services, including Custom House agent service, Port ... Rejection of refund claim - N/N. 41.2007 ST dated 06/10/2007 - export of services - Custom House agent service - Port service - Transport of goods by road & Rail Services - Held that: - The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 have issued the N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, providing for refund of service tax paid on the taxable services used for exportation of the goods. With regard to the port service, the CBEC vide Circular dated 26.02.2010 has interalia, clarified that irrespective of the clarification of service provided by the service provider, if the same relates to the services provided in the port, the same shall be considered for benefit of refund in terms of the Notification dated 06.10.2007. We find from the available records that the services received by the appellant namely, Business Support Service and Business Auxiliary Service have in-fact been provided within the port, and thus, in our view, such services shall qualify for the benefit of refund contained in the Notification dated 06.10.2007. With regard to the CHA service, we find that the service providers have provided such service on export of goods by the appellant. Further, the GTA services have been availed by the appellant for transportation of goods upto port of export. Since, export of goods in question has not been disputed by the Department, service tax paid on the taxable services used for ultimate exportation of goods, in our opinion, should merit consideration for refund in terms of the Notification dated 06.10.2007. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for Custom House agent service, Port service, Transport of goods by road & Rail Services.Analysis:The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for various services, including Custom House agent service, Port service, and Transport of goods by road & Rail Services. The Central Government, under the Finance Act, 1994, issued the said notification to provide a refund of service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting goods. The appellant's refund benefit was denied for services falling under the mentioned categories. The Tribunal noted that Business Support Service and Business Auxiliary Service were provided within the port, making them eligible for the refund as per the notification. Citing the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal in similar cases, the Tribunal held that services provided within the port should qualify for the refund. Additionally, services like Custom House agent and GTA services, used for exporting goods, were deemed eligible for the refund as well, given that the export of goods was not disputed by the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to a refund of service tax paid on the taxable services, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.This judgment highlights the interpretation and application of Notification No. 41/2007-ST concerning the refund of service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting goods. It underscores the importance of considering services provided within the port for the refund benefit and references relevant legal precedents to support the decision. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the specific services in question, such as Business Support Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Custom House agent service, and GTA services, emphasizing their connection to the exportation of goods. By clarifying the eligibility criteria for the refund under the notification, the Tribunal addressed the issues raised in the appeal and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the provided evidence and legal interpretations.