Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs Cst, Delhi Iv on 21 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing : 21/06/2013 ST/57743/2013 ST[SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 04/ST/APPEAL/DLH-IV/2013 dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi] For Approval & Signature : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes M/s Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Appellant Vs. CST, Delhi IV Respondent
Appearance:
Ms Thuhina, Advocate - for the Appellant
Shri Promod Kumar, AR - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 56785/2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal is filed by M/s Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (hereinafter referred to as appellants) against the Order in Appeal No. 04/ST/APPEAL/DLH-IV/2013 dated 11.02.2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants have filed refund claim in respect of specified services in respect of services namely Terminal Handling Charges, Inland Haulage Charges and Rail Freight and B.L. Charges, Agency Charges and Customs Clearances. This claim was processed by the Department. Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund of Rs. 902/- to the appellant and rejected the amount of Rs. 1,48,734/-, and appellants have filed appeal against the rejection of the refund before the Commissioner (Appeal) who also rejected their appeal. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order in this Tribunal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. I find that dispute in present appeal relates to refund in respect of service tax paid under Terminal Handling Charges, Inland Haulage Charges, B.L. Charges, Rail Freight and Agency Charges. Refund has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not submitted any bill of the service provider in the name of the appellant. All the bills are submitted by CHA. R.R. Joshi and by different Rail operators in respect of Rail Freight and Inland Haulage Charges.
4. As regards the denial of refund to the appellant on the ground that the bill has been issued by the CHA and not by the service provider. I find that the issue came before the Tribunal in the case of Durhan Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad reported 2012 (28) STR 366 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein it was held that, what is required to be seen is whether service tax was paid for required service under admissible category or not. In the present case invoices issued by the CHA clearly show amount against THC as well as B.L.C and the service tax had been paid on these charges by CHA. Moreover the container number is also mentioned on the invoices issued by the CHA in the name of appellant. Shipping bill number is also mentioned on the invoices of CHA. Container numbers and shipping bill number are sufficient to prove that the consignment in question was exported by the present appellant. Therefore in view of the decision by the Tribunal cited by the appellants the refund of service tax paid in respect of THC & B.L. Charges is admissible to them.
5. In respect of the refund of service tax paid on Rail Freight and Inland Haulage Charges, invoices have been issued by the various Rail operators which clearly show the container number and name of the appellant and corresponding invoice number. The invoice number is also mentioned in the Shipping bill which can facilitate correlation of the goods with the bill submitted by the appellants. Moreover Tribunal in case of Trident Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh reported in 2012 (28) STR 505 (Tri. Del.) has held that in respect of Rail Freight mentioning of container number reasonably establishes that service was in respect of export of the service and there is no reason to deny the refund on the ground that the invoices were not issued by service provider. In view of the above, appellants are eligible for the refund of the service tax paid by them under the Notification No. 17/2009-ST. I set aside the Order in appeal and allow the appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) Neha 3