9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 330 - AT - Service TaxExemption by refund - Business Auxiliary Services / Business Support Services Export of goods - contention of the appellant is that as the services which are provided for export purposes are exempted from payment of service tax vide Notification No. 41/2007-S.T Held that - Business Auxiliary Services / Business Support Services provided by the appellant for export of goods was not covered under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 during the period July, 2008 to September, 2008.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for 'Business Auxiliary Services' provided for export of goods during July 2008 to September 2008. Analysis: The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim for 'Business Auxiliary Services' provided for export of goods during July 2008 to September 2008. The lower authorities rejected the claim citing that the services were not covered under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The appellant argued that since the services were for export purposes, they should be exempt from service tax under the said notification. However, the revenue contended that the notification was amended from 7-12-2008 to grant exemption to 'Clearing & Forwarding Agency Service' for export of goods, and the amendment was prospective in nature. Thus, services provided during July 2008 to September 2008 were not covered under the original notification. The Tribunal found that the 'Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Services' were indeed provided during the period in question, and the exemption under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was amended by Notification No. 33/2008 dated 7-12-2008 to include services provided for export of goods. As a result, the services provided by the appellant fell outside the scope of the original notification. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities to reject the refund claim, stating that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
|
