2017 (8) TMI 1558 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - input services used in export of goods - Business Auxiliary Services - transport of goods by road - refund denied on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of RAYMOND LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III 2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that Inasmuch as the appellant filed the refund claims in July, 2009 for the quarter ending October-December, 2008, the refund claims are within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods - the claim filed by the appellant is within time. Refund claim - transportation of goods by the road - HELD THAT - The issue was dealt in the case of Garware Polyester Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 241 - CESTAT, MUMBAI wherein empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing of export goods, refund of service tax paid on transport of empty containers from the yard to the factory is admissible. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail refund of transport of service tax - refund allowed. Fulfilment of the condition 2(j) mentioned in the Notification No. 17/2009 - HELD THAT - None of the authorities below has been given any specific finding and appellant has not given to reply to their query. Therefore, that purpose the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the claim under the condition 2(j) of the said notification. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification No. 17/2009-ST for service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Services and transport of goods for export. Time bar for refund claim. Admissibility of refund claim for transport of goods. Fulfillment of condition 2(j) of Notification No. 17/2009.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim for service tax paid on services used for exporting goods. The appellant argued that the claim was rejected due to lack of transportation charge details and being time-barred. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision to support their claim for refund on GTA service. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not meet the conditions of the Notification, hence the claim was inadmissible.

The Tribunal examined the time bar issue and referred to a previous case involving Raymond Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the appellant filed the refund claim within the one-year period specified in the amended Notification, making them eligible for the refund if other conditions were met. Citing precedents and a High Court decision, the Tribunal affirmed the eligibility for refund if the claim is within the extended time limit.

Regarding the refund claim for transportation of goods, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Garware Polyester Ltd. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund for the transport of empty containers for stuffing export goods, affirming the admissibility of the refund claim for transport services. However, the Tribunal found a lack of specific findings on condition 2(j) of Notification No. 17/2009 and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for further examination.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by way of remand, instructing a reevaluation of the claim under condition 2(j) of the Notification. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting the conditions stipulated in the Notification for refund claims and the relevance of precedents in determining eligibility for refunds within the specified time frame.