2018 (12) TMI 861 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate of service tax paid - export of goods - N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - Held that - The issue is no more resintegra in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal holding a consistent view - this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata vs. SSK Exports Ltd. & others 2017 (11) TMI 299 - CESTAT KOLKATA , wherein under similar circumstances, Revenue has contended that the refund claim for each shipping bill should be examined on individual basis instead of overall basis - The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that there is no requirement to determine FOB value shipping bill wise, to determine the formula enumerated in Para 1 (c) or in Para 3(i) of the notification and the rebate claim should be allowed in full when the assessee has specified the said condition on overall basis - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the appellant for rebate of service tax under Notification No. 41/2012-ST.
2. Admissibility of specific amounts claimed for refund.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the notification.
4. Interpretation of the notification's provisions regarding the calculation of rebate claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the appellant for rebate of service tax under Notification No. 41/2012-ST:
The appellant engaged in trading minerals, metals, and energy products, claimed a rebate of service tax amounting to ?2,48,482/- for services used in exporting goods. The adjudicating authority sanctioned ?1,38,632/- and rejected ?1,09,850/- based on discrepancies. The appellant's claim was within the one-year limit from the export date, and they declared no CENVAT credit was taken. The sale proceeds were realized in India, and no electronic refund from Customs was claimed. The documents submitted established a correlation between input services and exports.

2. Admissibility of specific amounts claimed for refund:
The adjudicating authority found ?1,38,632/- admissible for refund as the services were specified and used for export. However, ?1,05,059/- was inadmissible as the difference between the claimed amount and the rebate available was less than 20% of the rebate available under the specified procedure. Additionally, ?4,648/- for services by M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. was inadmissible as the services were rendered within the place of manufacture, not qualifying as 'Specified Services'. An invoice for ?143/- from M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. was rejected for not being in original form.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the notification:
The appellant complied with most procedural requirements, submitting claims within the stipulated time and providing necessary declarations and documents. However, specific claims were rejected due to non-compliance with conditions such as the 20% difference rule and the requirement for original invoices.

4. Interpretation of the notification's provisions regarding the calculation of rebate claims:
The tribunal referenced previous decisions, including the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata vs. SSK Exports Ltd., which held that rebate claims should not be determined shipping bill-wise but on an overall basis. The notification allows claims for multiple shipping bills in a single application, and the requirement is to furnish details for each shipping bill, not to file separate claims. The tribunal upheld this interpretation, emphasizing a liberal construction of the beneficial legislation to promote exports.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order except for the ?143/- already allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, reinforcing the interpretation that rebate claims should be considered on an overall basis rather than shipping bill-wise, aligning with the intent to promote exports by granting service tax exemptions.