9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1511 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - denial on the ground that the appellants are claiming drawback - time limitation - denial also on the ground that the Courier Service and CHA are Business Support Services - Held that - The drawback claim has been calculated on the basis of the inputs used for manufacturing of the export goods but does not include the services covered under N/N. 41/2007. Therefore, claiming drawback by the appellants does not bar for claiming refund of Service Tax paid on the services covered under N/N. 41/2007 for export of the goods. On the issue of time barred, refund claim has been filed by the appellant on 11.05.2009 for the period September, 2008 which is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Raymond Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III 2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that The said Notification was amended vide N/N. 17/2009 dated 07/07/2009 so as to allow filing of the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods - refund claim filed by the appellant is within time. With regard to denial of Cenvat Credit for CHA Services and Courier Service, the said services has been availed by the appellant for export of goods and Service Tax is paid thereon which has not been disputed by the Revenue - the appellant is entitle for refund claim of the same. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 for services used in export of goods. 2. Grounds for rejection: A. Claiming drawback of duty paid on inputs. B. Time-barred refund claim. C. Classification of Courier Service and CHA as Business Support Services. Analysis: The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 for services used in exporting goods. The appellant had filed the refund claim for the quarter ending September 2008, specifically for CHA, Courier Service, and Business Support Service. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim as time-barred and due to the appellant claiming drawback, thereby deeming them ineligible for a refund. The appellant contested that they were entitled to a refund for the services of Courier and CHA used for export. The Revenue supported the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellant's claim for drawback on duty paid for inputs did not preclude them from claiming a refund for Service Tax paid on services covered under Notification No.41/2007. The Tribunal held that the denial of the refund claim on this ground was not sustainable. Regarding the time-bar issue, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision and held that the refund claim filed by the appellant was within the permissible timeframe, as per the amended notification. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the services of CHA and Courier were utilized for exporting goods, and Service Tax was paid on these services without dispute from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to a refund for these services. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to the refund claim for the specified services used in exporting goods.
|
