2017 (10) TMI 1303 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - GTA service availed for transport of export goods from factory to port - N/N. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007 - Held that - CBEC has clarified in respect of export the port of export would be the place of removal - neither credit of the said service can be denied nor it can be said that the said services were not availed by the respondent but by the merchant exporter - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of service tax on service of GTA availed for transport of export goods from factory to port.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund of service tax by the appellants on the service of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for transporting export goods from the factory to the port. The revenue argued that the service was not used by the respondent but by the merchant exporter, hence the appellants were not entitled to credit or refund under notification 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007.

The revenue contended that since the service was used by the merchant exporter, the appellants were not entitled to credit or refund. However, the respondent's counsel argued that they were paying for the services and, in the case of exports, the Board had determined that the port of export constituted the place of removal. Therefore, the credit of the service could not be denied, and it could not be claimed that the services were not availed by the respondent but by the merchant exporter.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the judge found that the respondent had indeed paid for the services and was liable to pay service tax on the GTA service. Additionally, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) had clarified that for exports, the port of export should be considered the place of removal. Consequently, the judge dismissed the revenue's argument that the service was availed by the merchant exporter and not by the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow the refund of service tax on the GTA service used for transporting export goods from the factory to the port, emphasizing that the respondent had paid for the services and was liable for the service tax, as per the clarification by CBEC regarding the port of export being the place of removal for export goods.