2017 (3) TMI 374 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Held that - all the services have been availed by the appellant for the course of export of goods. There is no dispute that the services have been provided by the service provider who had paid services on these services. It is also not in dispute that all these services have been availed by the appellant themselves - reliance was placed in the case of M/s Sakuma Exports Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I 2017 (1) TMI 235 - CESTAT MUMBAI - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007.

Analysis:
The appellant exported Rice Agro and Non Agro products and filed a refund claim for services availed during export, which was rejected on various grounds. The rejection was based on issues such as classification of services not mentioned in some invoices, services not covered under the specified notification, discrepancies in service provider details, and transportation-related service tax claims. However, it was established that all services were availed for export, provided by the service provider, and utilized by the appellant, making them eligible for a refund under Notification 41/2007. The Tribunal referred to previous cases like M/s Sakuma Exports Ltd. and Bhadresh Trading Corporation Ltd. where similar refund claims were allowed, emphasizing the eligibility for refund when services are used for exported goods.

The Tribunal further referenced cases like M/s Gran Overseas Ltd. and CCE Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports, where the issue of timely refund claims was discussed. It was clarified that the refund claims filed within the amended period were eligible for consideration, as per Notification No. 17/2009. Citing judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and previous Tribunal decisions, it was established that retrospective amendments and extended timelines for refund claims were permissible, provided all conditions stipulated in the notification were met. The Tribunal emphasized that the main conditions of export of goods and payment of service tax to service providers for export-related services were fulfilled by the appellant, making them eligible for the refund.

In alignment with previous decisions and legal principles, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant's case was covered for a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007. The impugned orders denying the refund claim were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The adjudicating authority was directed to comply with the Tribunal's order within a specified timeframe. The judgment reaffirmed the eligibility of the appellant for a refund under the specified notification, emphasizing the importance of meeting all conditions for such claims.