2018 (3) TMI 1385 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax paid on the taxable services used for exportation of the goods - denial on the ground that the requirements/conditions laid down in Notification dated 29.06.2012 have not been properly complied with by the respondent - Held that - the disputed services involved in this case were used/ utilized by the appellant in or in relation to exportation of goods. Since the Department has not specifically alleged that the entire goods were not exported by the respondent, the refund claim cannot be denied on the procedural conditions - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against impugned order by Revenue - Denial of refund claim under Notification dated 29.06.2012 - Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's order - Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order - Revenue's appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Refund Claim under Notification dated 29.06.2012
The respondent, a merchant exporter, filed a refund application under Notification 41/2012-ST for Service Tax paid on taxable services used for exporting goods. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax partially sanctioned the refund claim but rejected the balance amount, stating that since the goods were excisable and services were utilized beyond the factory gate, the refund claim should not be allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision and restored the refund claim in favor of the respondent. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the refund application by considering a different paragraph of the Notification. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent, as a merchant exporter, exported all goods procured domestically, making them eligible for the refund under the Notification.

Issue 2: Eligibility for Refund Claim
The Tribunal analyzed Notification 41/2012-ST, which grants rebate of service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting goods. The Explanation to the Notification distinguishes between excisable and non-excisable goods regarding specified services. In this case, the respondent, as a merchant exporter, purchased goods from a domestic source and exported them, reflecting the transactions in the balance sheet. The Tribunal noted that the disputed services were used for exporting goods and found no specific allegation that the entire goods were not exported. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the services used by the appellant for exportation of goods should be considered for a refund under the Notification.

Final Decision:
After considering the arguments and case records, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in their contentions. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to grant the refund claim to the respondent, emphasizing the eligibility of the respondent as a merchant exporter under Notification 41/2012-ST.

This judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling the conditions specified in notifications for refund claims and the significance of proper documentation and evidence to support refund applications, especially in cases involving the export of goods and payment of service tax.