9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1115 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - N/N. 40/2007-ST dated 17.9.2007 - input services - Held that - It is not disputed that the appellant has filed the refund claim under the said notification. However, later by N/N. 17/2008 dated 1.4.2008, the impugned services have been included in the specified services. Since the refund claim pertains to services prior to 1.4.2008, the appellant having sought refund under N/N. 40/2007 is not eligible for the refund since these are not specified / exempted services as per this notification - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund of service tax under Notification No. 40/2007 for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008. Analysis: The appellants filed a refund application for service tax under Notification No. 40/2007 for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the claim, which was subsequently rejected by the refund sanctioning authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that all services were related to the export of goods and that expenses were paid on their behalf, even though invoices were raised in the name of a group company. The appellant contended that the place of removal should be considered the port for export goods, making them eligible for a refund under CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007. However, the authorities rejected the claim stating that the services were not specified in the notification. The main contention was that the services for which the refund claim was made were not specified services under Notification No. 40/2007. Although these services were later included as specified services in Notification No. 17/2008, this inclusion was effective only from 1.4.2008. As the refund claim pertained to services before this date, the appellant was not eligible for a refund under Notification No. 40/2007. Therefore, the authorities were justified in rejecting the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal based on this ground.
|
