PACIFIC EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the rejection of refund claim made by the appellant in respect of service tax paid on services utilized in respect of goods which have been exported. Refund claims have been made under the Notification No. 41/2007 -S.T., dated 6 -10 -2007. The refund claims have been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that classification of the services by the appellant was wrong. Further, it has also been held that four services namely, terminal handling charges, and documentation fee, Courier services, CHA services and GTA services are not covered within the scope of the notification and therefore, appellants are not entitled.

(2.) HEARD the learned advocate for the appellants and learned SDR. In respect of CHA services, refund claim has been rejected on the ground that service providers were registered under C and F services. However, learned advocate drew my attention to the registration certificate issued to the service providers and submitted that the service provider was CHA. As regards, courier services, the claim has been rejected on the ground that invoices did not contain the exporters registration numbers and export invoice numbers and names and addresses of the recipient of the courier etc. Other than making only a submission that notification does not require details except the details furnished, both sides could not produce copy of notification.

(3.) IN the case of refund relating to GTA services also, refund claim has been rejected on the same ground. With regard to Terminal Handling Charges claim, the authorities have taken a stand that in respect of two service providers, the registration numbers have not been provided and in respect of others, there is no evidence to show that they were authorized by the Port to provide port services. Further, what is required to be examined is as to whether service tax was paid under the category of Port services and not under the relevant head, or not. It is a settled law that re -classification of the services cannot be done at the recipients end. Therefore, lower authorities should have examined the invoices and other documents and have seen whether service tax was paid under the relevant budget head for payment of service tax, in respect of Port services or not.