9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 523 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service tax - paid on specified services in terms of the provisions of Notification No.41/2007-ST 6.10.2007 - Non-fulfillment of condition contained in proviso (e) to para (1) of Notification that the goods exported without availing drawback of service tax paid on the specified services under the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - Held that - the present bunch of appeals are being repeatedly adjourned at the requests of Mr. O P Aganwal, Id Consultant, who is representing most of the assessees on the ground that Tribunal has decided against them in the above referred decision in the case of Art & Craft Inc. & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II 2016 (4) TMI 25 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and they are making efforts at the Ministry level to get retrospective exemption. However, it is seen and as clarified by the Id. Advocate today that in spite of representations made by them, no decision has been taken by the Ministry. This fact itself leads to the conclusion that the issue stand decided against the assessees by the above referred decision in the case of Art & Craft Inc. & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II and this fact stands accepted by the Id. Advocates representing the assessees. The goods having been exported under claim of drawback is a violative of the condition I (e) of the Notification, thus leading to the fact of non-refund of service tax paid on various services utilised at the port area for the export of goods - appeal of assessee rejected - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues involved:
Refund claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST06.10.2007 for service tax paid on services utilized at port area for export of goods; Interpretation of condition 1(e) of first proviso to the Notification regarding admissibility of refund claims when goods have been exported by availing drawback of service tax paid on specified services. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Ashok K Arya, Member, involved appeals by both assessees and Revenue concerning identical issues related to refund claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST06.10.2007 for service tax paid on services utilized at port area for export of goods. The contentious issue revolved around condition 1(e) of the first proviso to the Notification, which states that no refund of service tax would be admissible if goods have been exported by availing drawback of service tax paid on specified services. The Tribunal considered various earlier decisions, including Final Order No-51013-51019/2016 in the case of Art & Craft Inc. & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II. The Tribunal held that the condition 1(e) of the first proviso to the Notification was not satisfied in cases where goods were exported under drawback, leading to the non-refund of service tax paid on the services. The Tribunal also referenced decisions in other cases such as Rajasthan Textile Mills vs. CCE, Jaipur and Bhadresh Trading Corporation Ltd. vs. CST to establish the inapplicability of those decisions to the present exporters' circumstances. Despite advocates' arguments and references to earlier Tribunal decisions allowing refund claims, the Tribunal emphasized the need to follow recent Division Bench decisions over Single Member Bench decisions, particularly the case of Art & Craft Inc. & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II. The appeals were repeatedly adjourned due to efforts to seek retrospective exemption at the Ministry level, but no decision had been made. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was decided against the assessees based on the earlier decision in the case of Art & Craft Inc. & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the assessees and allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, determining that goods exported under drawback violated the condition 1(e) of the Notification, resulting in the non-refund of service tax paid on services utilized for exporting goods.
|
