9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 493 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - N/N. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007 as amended - whether the assessee is entitled to refund of service tax paid on repo charges, haulage charges and terminal handling charges, Customs House Agent Service and Clearing and Forwarding Service used for export of their goods as per the Notification No.41/2007 dated 06.10.2007 as amended? - Held that - the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the Respondents own case, for earlier period, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus AIA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD 2015 (1) TMI 1044 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , considered the eligibility of benefit of N/N. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 as amended, in relation to very same services and held that these services fall under the scope of the said Notification - the service tax paid on the aforesaid services, undisputedly used in the export of goods by the assesse, are eligible to refund under N/N. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, as amended - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of service tax paid on specific charges for export of goods as per a particular notification. Analysis: The central issue in the present appeals was whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of service tax paid on repo charges, haulage charges, terminal handling charges, Customs House Agent Service, and Clearing and Forwarding Service used for export of goods as per Notification No.41/2007 dated 06.10.2007. The advocate for the respondent argued that these services fell under the scope of a specific notification and were used in the export of goods, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the services were classified under Business Auxiliary Service and were not covered under the relevant notification. They referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their argument. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and examined the sample invoices provided by the respondent's advocate. The invoices described the services as Terminal Handling Charges, Repo Charges, Customs House Agent Service, and Clearing & Forwarding Service. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar case, where the services were found to be covered by the relevant notification. The Tribunal concluded that the service tax paid on the mentioned services, which were used in the export of goods, was eligible for a refund under Notification 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, as amended. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. In summary, the judgment revolved around the eligibility of the assessee for a refund of service tax paid on specific charges for exporting goods under a particular notification. The Tribunal relied on past judgments and the nature of services provided to determine that the refund was indeed admissible, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
|
