2018 (5) TMI 821 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - export of goods - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6/10/2007 as amended - Held that - the basis on which the issue revolves around certain facts which was not considered before the authorities below while arguing their case, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to allow the respondent to place the facts of their case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Notification 41/2007-ST for services used in export of goods.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The respondent claimed a refund of service tax paid on Courier Service, GTA Service, and Commission to overseas Agents under Notification 41/2007-ST for the period 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008. The refund claim was partly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to an appeal by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that since the disputed services were included in the notification after the export of goods, the refund of service tax paid on such services cannot be allowed. Reference was made to judgments by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court to support this argument.

3. Respondent's Counter-Argument: The respondent argued that even though the services were not notified under the relevant notification at the time of export, they were included at the time of filing the refund application. Citing precedents, the respondent asserted eligibility for the refund based on the services used for exporting goods.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal noted its consistent view that if services used in exporting goods were included in the notification subsequent to the export, the refund would be eligible under the relevant notification. However, acknowledging the conflicting observation in the Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the facts and evidence presented by the appellant in light of the legal principles, including the ratio from the TT Ltd. case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further consideration.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for a fresh determination based on the principles of law and relevant facts.