2018 (4) TMI 1583 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of services - N/N. 27/2012-CE (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 - Rule 6 A (e) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in CCE vs. Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the Hon ble Tribunal held that when entire turnover is exported and no other service is provided in domestic tariff area, hence export turnover will be equal to total turnover - the Revenue is silent upon the issue having been decided by the Tribunal in Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order for refund of CENVAT Credit for Banking & Financial Services exported out of India.
2. Interpretation of 'all other services' in the definition of 'total turnover' under CCR, 2004.
3. Entitlement to refund of CENVAT Credit considering exported services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund of CENVAT Credit for Banking & Financial Services exported under Notification No.27/2012-CE (N.T.). The party had filed refund claims but part of the income from exports was not realized in convertible foreign exchange. The adjudicating authority held that the differential amount falls under 'other services' as it was not realized in foreign exchange. The refund was sanctioned based on the export turnover received in foreign currency, leading to the party filing appeals against the decision.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the meaning of 'all other services' in the context of 'total turnover' under CCR, 2004. Referring to the 'Law of purposive interpretation,' it was observed that 'all other services' would mean the value of services other than the exported service. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, it was noted that when the entire turnover is exported and no other service is provided domestically, 'export turnover' equals 'total turnover.' Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the value of exempted and taxable services provided domestically was NIL, entitling the appellant to a refund of full CENVAT Credit reduced by a specific amount.

3. The Revenue, in their appeal, referenced relevant notifications and rules but did not address the Tribunal's previous decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Authority also considered a High Court decision and various Tribunal rulings, including the one in question. As the issue had been settled by previous decisions, which the Revenue did not challenge or distinguish in their appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering precedent and the lack of grounds for interference in the impugned order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the legal interpretations made, and the rationale behind the decision to reject the Revenue's appeal.