2015 (11) TMI 972 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - refund denied of an amount of service tax paid for the services rendered by the service providers at the place of destination - whether the appellant is eligible for refund of service tax paid on various services which were availed by them in respect of the terminal handling charges, inland haulage service and other documentation charges incurred for the goods on reaching the port of destination - Held that - It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of the clauses of Notification, that it talks about granting of rebate on specified goods which is defined as services which have been used beyond the place of export of such goods. It is undisputed that in the case in hand, appellant exported the excisable goods and utilized the services for such export and the place of removal in the case in hand is factory gate. It is also undisputed that in some of their clients case, appellant had accepted the terms of delivery of the goods till the door steps of the clients. It would mean that the appellant was responsible for the delivery of the goods in the hands of the appellant s clients. Hence services received by the appellant for such activity is eligible for refund under Notification 41/2012-ST - impugned orders to the extent contested before the Tribunal are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of service tax paid on various services for exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for a refund of service tax paid on services utilized beyond the place of removal for the export of goods. The appellant was granted a refund for service tax paid on goods exported from India but denied a refund for services rendered at the destination port. The appellant contended that the services were used for export activities, and thus, eligible for a refund under Notification 41/2012-ST.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that Notification 41/2012-ST specifically allows a refund of service tax paid on specified services used beyond the place of removal for the export of goods. Reference was made to a similar case decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal. The counsel highlighted that despite the services being rendered after the goods were exported, the contract was for door delivery, making the services essential for the export process.

3. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, opposing the appellant's claim for a refund of service tax paid on services rendered post-export.

4. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of Notification 41/2012-ST, emphasizing the eligibility for a rebate on services used beyond the place of export of goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant exported excisable goods and was responsible for delivering goods to clients' doorsteps, making the services received eligible for a refund under the said Notification.

5. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by the Delhi Bench in a similar case, where it was held that services provided in India for delivering goods outside India are eligible for a refund of service tax. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the services utilized for the export of goods beyond the place of removal were eligible for a refund of service tax. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.