2010 (6) TMI 257 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax refund claims scrutinized under Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing evidence for classification

M/s. Macro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Ahmedabad

The judgment addressed refund claims for service tax paid on specific services under the Finance Act, 1994. It highlighted discrepancies in the treatment ... Export - Refund of service tax paid on input services - service tax paid on charges for terminal handling and bill of lading. - Held that: Since refund of service tax is allowed based on specific category of services, it is necessary for the refund sanctioning authority to know under which head service tax has been paid. In the absence of any certificate or evidence produced by the appellants with regard to the actual heading under which this service was classified either service provider, the sanctioning authority could have required the appellants to produce evidence to show the category of service under which service tax has been paid. Neither the appellant nor the Revenue have undertaken this exercise. - matter remanded back Issues:1. Refund claims for service tax paid on specific services under the Finance Act, 1994.2. Rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority.3. Commissioner (Appeals) decision on refund of service tax on specific charges.4. Discrepancy in the treatment of terminal handling and REPO charges.5. Requirement of evidence for classification of bill of lading charges for service tax refund.Issue 1: Refund claims for service tax paid on specific services under the Finance Act, 1994The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Alkyd Resin, filed refund claims for service tax paid on services under the Finance Act, 1994. The services were classified under specific sections and notifications. The appellant sought exemption through refund claims for the periods mentioned.Issue 2: Rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authorityShow cause notices were issued proposing rejection of parts of the refund claims. The adjudicating authority rejected certain amounts while sanctioning others. The appellant appealed against these decisions.Issue 3: Commissioner (Appeals) decision on refund of service tax on specific chargesThe Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund of service tax paid on REPO charges but disallowed the refund for charges related to terminal handling and bill of lading. Detailed arguments were presented, leading to the Commissioner's decision.Issue 4: Discrepancy in the treatment of terminal handling and REPO chargesThe Commissioner observed that terminal handling charges and charges for raising the bill of lading were related to custom house agent services. The Commissioner exempted the services of the custom house agent from service tax for a specific period. However, discrepancies arose regarding the treatment of terminal handling and REPO charges, leading to further analysis.Issue 5: Requirement of evidence for classification of bill of lading charges for service tax refundThe Commissioner failed to consider a document provided by the appellant regarding terminal handling and REPO charges. The document clarified that these charges were paid to specific port authorities. The Commissioner accepted the REPO charges but denied the terminal handling charges. The absence of evidence for the classification of bill of lading charges led to a remand for the Original Adjudicating Authority to decide based on the evidence provided by the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to refund claims for service tax paid on specific services under the Finance Act, 1994. It highlighted discrepancies in the treatment of different charges and emphasized the importance of providing evidence for the classification of services for service tax refund purposes. The decision involved a detailed analysis of the facts and arguments presented by both parties, ultimately leading to a remand for further clarification on certain charges.