2017 (2) TMI 623 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Rectifies Procedural Lapses, Grants Refund on Freight Charges, and Rejects Claims Beyond Limitation Period

Lucid Colloids Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Jaipur

Lucid Colloids Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Jaipur - 2017 (52) S.T.R. 152 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 17/2009-ST for service tax paid on specified services availed for export of goods; denial based on procedural lapses, freight charges, claims less than Rs. 500, services not covered under port services, limitation period.Analysis:1. Procedural Lapses in Certification:The appellant's refund claim was initially rejected due to the procedural lapse in certifying each invoice as required by the notification. However, the appellant submitted a consolidated certification for the entire refund claim. The appellant's counsel argued that the refund claims should not be denied for technical lapses and offered to certify the original invoices if given the opportunity. The Tribunal accepted this argument and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to allow the appellant to rectify any deficiencies in certification.2. Denial of Refund on Freight Charges:The refund claim for service tax paid on freight charges was denied due to a clerical mistake in the description and classification of services. The appellant contended that the refund pertained to transportation of goods by rail service, for which the service tax is to be paid by the service provider. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and allowed the refund based on invoices issued by the service provider, which clearly showed the payment of service tax by them.3. Claims Less than Rs. 500:The refund claims for certain shipping bills were rejected as the service tax refund was less than Rs. 500 for each bill. The appellant argued that the total refund claim amount should be considered, not individual services. The Tribunal agreed, stating that rejecting the refund for each bill when the total claim exceeded Rs. 500 was an incorrect interpretation of the relevant notification.4. Refund Denial for Services Not Covered Under Port Services:The refund claim was rejected for services like Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Service, Express release fees, and Bill of Lading charges on the ground that they were not covered under port services. The appellant cited several case laws to support their argument that these services should be considered as port services. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the services rendered within the port should be considered as port services eligible for service tax refund.5. Refund Claim Beyond Limitation Period:A part of the refund claim was rejected as it was beyond the period of limitation. The appellant's counsel acknowledged this and did not press for the refund of cases fully beyond the specified time limit. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal based on the above considerations.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the appeal and the Tribunal's decisions on each issue, providing a detailed understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes.