2015 (5) TMI 840 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - jurisdiction of sanctioning such refund - Export made from Akola factory - Revenue contends that jurisdiction of sanctioning such refund would arose only at Indore Commissionerate as the documents i.e., export documents were prepared from the registered office of the assessee - Held that - there is no dispute that the consignments which were exported were cleared from the Akola factory; the jurisdiction for claiming the refund of service tax paid on such services which are in connection with the export of goods cannot be shifted to their Indore Commissionerate as the registered office of the respondent-assessee being at Indore cannot be a reason for shifting the jurisdiction to Indore. It is undisputed that the manufacturing activity has taken place at Akola and falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate at Nagpur. - there is no dispute as to that the respondent is a manufacturer-exporter, a category which is covered under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST - Jurisdiction for claiming refund - Eligibility of the manufacturer-exporter for refund - Discrepancies in refund claims.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four appeals disposed of together concerning refund claims of service tax by a manufacturer-exporter under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The Revenue contested the refund claims, arguing that the jurisdiction for claiming such refunds should be at the Indore Commissionerate, where the export documents were prepared, despite the manufacturing unit being in Akola. The first appellate authority allowed the appeals, emphasizing the eligibility of the manufacturer-exporter for the refund. The main issue revolved around the jurisdiction for sanctioning the refund claims and the fulfillment of conditions under the notification.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the consignments were exported from the Akola factory, and services were received for the same consignments. The Revenue's contention to shift jurisdiction to Indore was rejected for two primary reasons. Firstly, the manufacturing activity occurred in Akola under the Nagpur Commissionerate's jurisdiction, making it the appropriate place for claiming the refund. Secondly, the respondent qualified as a manufacturer-exporter under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, meeting the conditions for claiming the refund. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's findings, emphasizing the policy of ensuring tax-free exports and upheld the respondent's eligibility for refunds.

The first appellate authority's detailed analysis of the notification provisions supported the respondent's right to claim the refund as a manufacturer-exporter. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the correct filing of refund claims at the Nagpur Commissionerate. The judgment highlighted the importance of promoting tax-free exports and affirmed the legality of the impugned orders supporting the respondent's refund claims. Ultimately, all four appeals were rejected, affirming the respondent's eligibility for the refunds based on the established facts and legal provisions.

This judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the jurisdictional issues, eligibility criteria, and adherence to notification conditions concerning refund claims of service tax by a manufacturer-exporter. It underscores the significance of proper jurisdiction for claiming refunds, the interpretation of relevant notification provisions, and the overarching policy of facilitating tax-free exports. The decision clarifies the legal standing of the respondent's refund claims and affirms the correctness of the first appellate authority's findings in allowing the appeals.