2017 (7) TMI 900 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Service Tax paid on input service used for export of goods - denial on the ground that the goods were exported from the appellant s warehouse which is not situated under the jurisdiction of Central Excise, Haldia-II Division - Held that - the manufacturer-exporter of the goods shall file the claim of refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse. On plain reading of the Notification, it is clear that the manufacturer-exporter may file the refund claim to their jurisdictional officers of the factory or the warehouse - In the present case, the appellants filed the refund claims to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer. The said refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that a part of the refund related to the warehouse of the exporter. However, the appellant is not entitled to the refund where the amounts of refund do not co-relate with the documents - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of goods exported from a warehouse outside jurisdiction.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to lack of co-relation with documents.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the rejection of the refund claim because the goods were exported from a warehouse not under the jurisdiction of the Haldia-II division. The Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 was referred to by the lower authorities. The Tribunal analyzed the notification and found that the manufacturer-exporter can file the refund claim with the jurisdictional officers of the factory or the warehouse. In this case, the appellants filed the claim with the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory. The Tribunal held that the claim cannot be rejected solely based on a part of the refund relating to the warehouse. Citing a government order, it emphasized that procedural rules should not be construed as mandatory, especially if the fundamental requirement of manufacture, duty payment, and export is met. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' findings on this issue and directed the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund claim on merit.

2. While the Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the appellant was not entitled to the refund where the amounts did not co-relate with the documents, it partially allowed the appeal related to this issue. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund claim on merit, emphasizing compliance with mandatory conditions like export of goods, duty payment, and processing the claim without technical infractions mentioned in the lower authorities' orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed one appeal and partly allowed another, setting aside the findings related to the jurisdiction of the warehouse and directing a thorough review of the refund claim on its merits.