2017 (1) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - export of services - N/N. 41/2007-ST, dt.06.07.2007 - Terminal Handling Services - Transportation of empty containers from yard to the factory for stuffing the export goods - the Appellants could not produce all the evidences as required under the said N/N. 41/2007-ST, dt.06.07.2007 at the time of adjudication, hence remanded the matter for reconsideration of the evidences subsequently produced - Held that - The observation on merit, that Terminal Handling Services and Transportation of empty containers from yard to the factory for stuffing the export goods having no nexus with the manufacturing activity cannot be sustained - it is prudent to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose to consider the evidences that would be produced for scrutiny of the same in the light of the requirement of N/N.41/2007 ST - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of service tax paid on exported goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST.
2. Authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case.
3. Eligibility of refund on 'Terminal Handling Services' and 'Transportation of empty containers.'
4. Nexus of said services with manufacturing activity.
5. Sufficiency of evidences required under Notification No.41/2007-ST.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved in this judgment concern the refund of service tax paid on exported goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The Appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Dyes and Intermediates, claimed refund but faced rejection. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to re-assess the eligibility of the refund, leading to appeals by both the Revenue and the Assessee. The Revenue challenged the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case.

2. In Appeals No.E/1745/2010 and No.1746/2010, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund on the grounds that certain services, like 'Terminal Handling Services' and 'Transportation of empty containers,' lacked nexus with manufacturing activity. The Appellant argued citing relevant legal precedents that these services indeed had a nexus with the manufacturing activity, making the refund claim admissible. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The common finding in all cases was the inadequacy of evidences required under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for reconsideration of evidences subsequently produced. The judgment highlighted that the services in question did have a nexus with manufacturing activity, contrary to the initial observation. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for a reevaluation of the evidences in light of the notification's requirements, with a mandate to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand.