2017 (6) TMI 1002 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - services used for export of goods - whether the claim of refund of Service Tax paid on services received by the appellant-assessee, a manufacturer cum exporter, in the course of export of their products, post clearance from the factory, whether the refund has been rightly rejected? - Held that - N/N. 17 of 2009-ST read with clarificatory Circular No. 112/06/09-ST dated 12/03/2009, wherein CBEC clarified that N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 does not require verification of the registration certificate of the supplier of services. Further CBEC vide Circular No. 106/09/2008-ST dated 11/10/2008, further clarified that it is not incumbent upon the exporter to give proof that the service provider has actually paid service tax to the Government and to that extent, the rejection of refund claim on transport services on the ground that the proof of payment of Service Tax has not been submitted is untenable - refund allowed with interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund of Service Tax paid on services received by the appellant-assessee for export of products post factory clearance.

Analysis:
The appellant filed refund claims for Service Tax paid on services used in the export of goods for two units. The refund claims were rejected for one unit due to jurisdictional issues. The port services for the other unit were provided by specific companies, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) but was unsuccessful.

The appellant argued that the issue was settled based on specific notifications and circulars by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). They cited precedents where refund claims for various charges related to port services were allowed. The appellant emphasized that the service provider's payment of Service Tax was not a prerequisite for refund eligibility.

Regarding port services, the appellant referred to a case where services provided within port premises were considered as port services. The appellant highlighted the CBEC circular stating that verification of the service provider's registration was not mandatory for granting refunds. The appellant maintained that all necessary documents were provided and requested the appeal's approval.

After considering the arguments and facts presented, the Tribunal found the reasons for denying the refund to be untenable. Relying on the legal provisions and CBEC circulars discussed during the proceedings, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, overturned the impugned orders, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund with interest within 60 days.

This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for refund of Service Tax paid on services used for export purposes post factory clearance. It emphasizes the importance of legal provisions, notifications, and precedents in determining refund claims, particularly in cases involving port services. The decision underscores the significance of providing accurate documentation and adherence to procedural requirements for successful refund claims.