9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 132 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - GTA Services - Port Services - CHA Services - Terminal Handling Services - N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - denial on the ground that the refund claim was filed by the non-manufacturer-exporter therefore they should have filed refund in Form A-2 - Held that - Merely because the Registered Office of the respondent filed the refund claim does not mean that they are non-manufacturer and non-registered unit. Though the Registered Office filed the refund claim but it is in respect of manufacturing unit. Accordingly they have rightly followed the conditions of para (2)(b) of Notification by filing refund in Form A-1, therefore there is no substance in the grounds of Revenue s appeal - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to refund of service tax paid on various services. 2. Compliance with conditions prescribed in Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. 3. Filing of refund claim in Form A-1 by a manufacturer-exporter. Entitlement to Refund of Service Tax Paid on Various Services: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal that allowed the appeal filed by the respondent for a refund claim of ? 35,26,753/-, which was initially rejected by the Original Authority. The appellant claimed a refund for service tax paid on services like GTA Services, Port Services, CHA Services, and Terminal Handling Services. The Revenue argued that the appellant, as a non-manufacturer-exporter, did not comply with the conditions specified in Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, hence not entitled to the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. Compliance with Conditions Prescribed in Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009: The Revenue contended that under the conditions of Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, a non-manufacturer-exporter seeking a refund must file a declaration in Form A-2 with the jurisdictional officer. The respondent, in this case, exported goods as a non-manufacturer exporter and not as a manufacturer-exporter with Central Excise Registration. The Revenue argued that the refund was not admissible to the respondent due to this non-compliance. Filing of Refund Claim in Form A-1 by a Manufacturer-Exporter: The respondent, represented by their counsel, argued that they were engaged in manufacturing and exporting excisable goods, registered under Central Excise in Form No.A-1. The counsel contended that the refund claim, although filed by the Registered Office, pertained to the registered manufacturing unit, making them eligible to file the refund claim in Form A-1 as per para (2)(b) of Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The counsel emphasized that even if there were procedural non-compliances, the refund claim should not be rejected when the export itself was not under dispute. Judgment: The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions from both sides and found that the only ground raised by the Revenue was regarding the filing of the refund claim by a non-manufacturer-exporter. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant unit was a manufacturing unit to which para (2)(b) of Notification No.17/2009-ST applied. This provision required a manufacturer-exporter to file a refund claim in Form A-1. Despite the Registered Office filing the claim, it was in relation to the manufacturing unit, indicating compliance with the notification's conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as they found no merit in the Revenue's grounds. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.
|
