2018 (12) TMI 73 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service tax - export of goods - N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29/06/2012 - it was alleged that appellant-assessee has not supported their claim by any evidence to show that all the services used by them have been used only in relation to export of goods and not for any other purpose - co-relation between the services received and utilized in relation to export of goods - Held that - The services in respect of the said invoices mentioned at the brief fact above are the taxable specified services in terms of the said notification which have been rendered for the export of the said goods for the relevant period of claim and therefore, fulfilled the conditions/requirements of the said notification and the said amount is admissible for refund. An amount of ₹ 4,48,188/- claimed by the said claimant is admissible for refund of Service Tax paid on Taxable specified services in terms of the said notification - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Exemption of Service Tax for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2012-ST.
2. Disallowance of refund by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Claim supported by evidence for services used in relation to export.
4. Examination of claim by Refund Sanctioning Authority.
5. Compliance with conditions of the notification for refund eligibility.

Exemption of Service Tax for Export of Goods:
The judgment revolves around the exemption of Service Tax for the export of goods under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the exemption by sanctioning a refund claimed by the appellant. However, the Revenue filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, leading to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the original order. The Tribunal was approached to challenge this decision.

Disallowance of Refund by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals):
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the refund, stating that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the services used were solely for the export of goods and not for any other purpose. Lack of correlation between the services received and utilized for export was highlighted, leading to the disallowance of the refund.

Claim Supported by Evidence for Services Used in Relation to Export:
The Refund Sanctioning Authority examined the claim and observed that the appellant had certified the invoices, bills, and challans as per the notification requirements. The claimant declared the usage of specified services for export, paid the service tax, and self-certified the services' utilization for specific shipping bills. The nexus between input services and exports was established through relevant documents.

Examination of Claim by Refund Sanctioning Authority:
The Refund Sanctioning Authority scrutinized the input service bills and invoices to ensure compliance with the notification's conditions. The claimant's certification on the original copies of invoices was crucial in determining the admissibility of the refund amount, which was found to be below the stipulated percentage of the FOB value.

Compliance with Conditions of Notification for Refund Eligibility:
The Tribunal carefully reviewed the claim for refund, finding that the claimant had adhered to the notification's requirements. The claim was filed within the prescribed time limit, and various conditions, such as non-availment of CENVAT credit, realization of sale proceeds in foreign currency, and submission of relevant documents, were met. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the exemption and upheld the original order, granting the refund of Service Tax paid on taxable specified services for export of goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant.

← Previous Next →