2018 (1) TMI 1091 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Jurisdiction for Refund Claims under Notification, Rejects Revenue's Objection

CCE&ST, Bhopal Versus M/s Nirnidhi Marketing Pvt. Ld.

CCE&ST, Bhopal Versus M/s Nirnidhi Marketing Pvt. Ld. - TMI Issues:1. Competency of Deputy Commissioner to decide refund claims under different notifications.2. Admissibility of service tax on transport of goods.3. Requirement of details in transporter's invoice.4. Necessity of one-to-one correlation of documents for service tax discharge.5. Admissibility of service tax on port services.6. Eligibility for refund based on payment of service tax on port services.Analysis:Issue 1 - Competency of Deputy Commissioner:The Revenue contended that the Deputy Commissioner lacked competence to decide refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST, citing a circular related to a previous notification. However, the Tribunal found this objection baseless, noting that the 2009 notification superseded the 2007 notification, with both having the same object and scheme. The objection was deemed frivolous, and the Tribunal confirmed the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner who decided the refund claims.Issue 2 - Admissibility of service tax on transport:The Revenue argued that service tax on transport from mines to railway siding was not admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent-assessee, noting that the transportation of goods directly to the port for export was eligible for refund, supported by relevant documentation.Issue 3 - Requirement of details in transporter's invoice:The Revenue raised concerns about the details in the transporter's invoice not matching with the exported goods. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had provided sufficient documentation, including shipping bills and invoices, leaving no doubt about the export of iron ore, as per the circular allowing self-certification or certification by a Chartered Accountant.Issue 4 - One-to-one correlation of documents:The Revenue argued for a one-to-one correlation of documents for service tax discharge, emphasizing the role of a Chartered Accountant's certification. The Tribunal clarified that while such certification could be corroborative, it was not the primary basis for refund eligibility. As there was no specific case of mismatch in the documents, the objection was dismissed.Issue 5 - Admissibility of service tax on port services:The Revenue contended that service tax on port services was not admissible for refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had submitted bills and invoices from service providers, establishing eligibility for exemption/refund, as the tax paid on port services was undisputed.Issue 6 - Eligibility for refund based on payment of service tax on port services:The Revenue argued that payment of service tax on port services did not automatically make the exporter eligible for a refund. However, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of the tax paid on port services for exemption/refund, as per the notification's provisions.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all the grounds raised by the Revenue, finding no merit in the appeals. The decisions in the impugned order were supported by detailed examination and were consistent with previous Tribunal rulings on similar disputes. The appeals were consequently dismissed on 07.12.2017.