2017 (4) TMI 440 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant wins refund on port services, testing not mandatory, courier charges eligible, GTA services under review

M/s Amira Foods (India) Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon

The appellant was held entitled to a refund claim for Terminal Handling Charges, Other Port Services, and Fumigation Services as they were considered part ... Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Terminal Handling Charges, other Port Services, Fumigation Expenses - denial on the ground that the services are not port services - Held that: - The said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s SRF [2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that exporter should not be unduly burdened with a condition to establish that the service provider was registered under port services - Terminal Handling Charges, Other Port Services and Fumigation Services are covered under port services, therefore the appellant is entitled for refund claim. Refund claim - Testing, Inspection and analysis services - denial on the ground that the appellant has not produced the agreement for those services - Held that: - the agreement is not requirement and the same is only procedural requirement for the same and in the case where there is no agreement, the appellant cannot be asked to produce the agreement - the appellant is entitled for refund claim on Testing, inspection and analysis services. Refund claim - Courier charges - denial on the ground that IEC code number of the appellant is not mentioned on the invoices issued by the service provider - reliance was placed in the case of Amar International [2015 (7) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that There is no dispute that the details of the appellant/exporter as also description of goods are mentioned in these invoices under the circumstances the objection can at the most be called procedural infirmity - the appellant is entitled for refund claim on the courier services. Refund claim - GTA service - denial on the ground that the appellant has not produced the relevant documents for entertaining to their refund claim - Held that: - as the appellant is preferred to produce the relevant documents in support of the services received by the appellant, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - part matter on remand and rest appeal allowed in favor of appellant. Issues involved:Refund claim denial on various services under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Terminal Handling Charges, Other Port Services, Fumigation Expenses, Testing, Inspection and Analysis services, Courier charges, and GTA services.Terminal Handling Charges, Other Port Services, Fumigation Expenses:The refund claim for these services was denied on the basis that they were not considered as port services. However, referencing a previous case, the Tribunal clarified that all services provided entirely within port premises fall under port services. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to a refund claim for Terminal Handling Charges, Other Port Services, and Fumigation Services.Testing, Inspection and Analysis services:The refund claim for these services was denied due to the absence of an agreement for Technical Testing and Analysis Services. However, the Tribunal ruled that the requirement of an agreement was only procedural and not mandatory. Citing a previous case, it was established that in the absence of such an agreement, the appellant could not be asked to produce it. Thus, the appellant was deemed entitled to a refund claim for Testing, Inspection, and Analysis services.Courier charges:The refund claim for Courier charges was rejected as the IEC code number of the exporter was not mentioned in the invoices. Relying on a previous case, the Tribunal held that the absence of the IEC code could be considered a procedural infirmity rather than a substantive issue. Consequently, the appellant was found eligible for a refund of the service tax paid on courier services.GTA services:The refund claim for GTA services was denied as the appellant failed to produce relevant documents. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for further examination to determine the entitlement of the refund claim on GTA services. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal by way of remand for consideration of the GTA services refund claim and approving the rest of the refund claims.