2014 (8) TMI 986 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 - amount of Service Tax was paid in relation to the export of goods - Held that - Notifications allowed refund of Service Tax in relation to only those services which are listed therein and which were received in relation to export of goods. The services in respect of which the appellants have claimed the impugned refund are not listed in either of the two notifications. The appellants have not been able to give any evidence that the refund claimed by them is in respect of services which are listed in these notifications. It needs to be mentioned here that it being a case of refund, the onus is on the appellants to show that they are eligible for refund and evidently the appellants have failed to discharge that onus. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for Service Tax paid in relation to export of goods.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a refund claim of &8377; 51,873/- under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007, stating that the Service Tax amount was paid concerning the export of goods. However, the claim was rejected as the services for which the refund was sought were not covered under the mentioned notifications. The services included Terminal Handling Charges at port, marine insurance, and railway freight and handling charges from ICD. The appellants argued that these charges were related to the export of goods, making them eligible for a refund.

Upon review, the tribunal found that the notifications allowed refunds only for services explicitly listed therein and received concerning the export of goods. The services for which the refund was claimed did not fall under the specified categories in the notifications. The appellants failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the refund claimed was for services covered by the notifications. In a refund scenario, the burden of proof lies with the appellants to establish their eligibility for a refund, which they failed to do in this case. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and rejected it accordingly.