2011 (6) TMI 241 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Service Tax of ₹ 1,48,155/- paid on GTA services on outward freight in relation to transportation of export consignment under Notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - Notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 vide Notification no. 3/2008-ST dated 19.12.2008 - in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Tata Coffee Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 364 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Held that the expression in relation to transport of export goods is wide enough to cover even transport of empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing of export goods - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of Service Tax on transportation of export consignment - Interpretation of Notification no. 17/2009-ST - Entitlement for refund on to and fro movement of empty container - Applicability of Notification no. 3/2008-ST - Judicial precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Tata Coffee Ltd. 2011(21)STR 546(Tri-Chennai).

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the rejection of their refund claim on Service Tax paid on GTA services for transportation of export consignment. The lower authorities denied the refund, citing the claim for Service Tax on transportation of empty containers to and from the factory premises as the reason for rejection. The appellant argued that the amendment to Notification no. 41/2007-ST through Notification no. 3/2008-ST included empty containers in the scope of services provided to an exporter for transport of export goods. They emphasized the phrase "in relation to export" in the Notification to support their claim, referencing the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Tata Coffee Ltd. 2011(21)STR 546(Tri-Chennai) as precedent.

The learned Counsel highlighted that the expression "in relation to transport of export goods" in the Notification covers both the movement of empty and stuffed containers for export. The Tribunal's decision in the Tata Coffee Ltd. case supported this interpretation, stating that the phrase is broad enough to encompass the transport of empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing export goods. The learned JDR reiterated the lower authorities' findings, but the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, found the Commissioner (Appeals) order unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the refund on the to and fro movement of containers for export.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of the relevant Notifications and upheld the appellant's right to claim a refund on the Service Tax paid for the transportation of export goods, including the movement of empty containers. The decision was based on a broad understanding of the phrase "in relation to transport of export goods" and was supported by a previous judicial precedent, ensuring a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case.