2020 (2) TMI 1007 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - export of goods - input services rendered by the Chartered Accountant - specified services or not as per N/N. 41/2012 ST dated 29.06.2012 - HELD THAT - The bare perusal of the notification and the amendment thereof makes it clear that any service which is being received by an exporter of goods and are used for the export of goods and the service tax thereof has been paid the refund thereof can be claimed provided that the services are rendered at a place which is neither factory nor any other place or premises of production or manufacture. This perusal makes it, abundantly, clear that the question of the service being rendered pre or post export has no significance. In the present case, the Appellant is the exporter of excisable goods and is claiming refund of service tax paid on the specified services as clarifies in the C.A's certificate as mentioned above, and that the services have been used, admittedly, in and in relation to export - None of the said services appears to have been used for the purpose of production of soap stone - all are the services which are to be used beyond the factory or premises of production or manufacturer. Whereas the specified services in the impugned notification, are the services irrespective pre or post export/clearance but those which are beyond place of production or manufacture - the order is held to be a result of wrong interpretation of the relevant notification, accordingly, is hereby set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of Service Tax on specified services for export of excisable goods.
2. Interpretation of notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 and subsequent amendment.
3. Eligibility criteria for refund under specified services beyond factory or premises of production.

Analysis:
1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal involved a common issue of refund claims for Service Tax paid on specified services used in the export of excisable goods. The appellant, engaged in the export of soapstone, filed refund claims citing notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The services in question were related to export activities such as negotiations, documentation, and foreign currency management.

2. The dispute arose when the department questioned the eligibility of the claimed services post an amendment in the notification through notification No. 1/2016 dated 03.02.2016. The department contended that post-export services were beyond the scope of the specified services, leading to partial rejection of the refund claim by the adjudicating authority and subsequent dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the notifications and the amendment to determine the eligibility criteria for refund under specified services. The Tribunal emphasized that the key factor was whether the services were used for export beyond the factory or premises of production. The Tribunal noted that the distinction between pre and post-export services was irrelevant as long as the services were utilized outside the factory or production premises.

4. The Tribunal highlighted the definition of specified services under the notification and the subsequent amendment, clarifying that services used for export and paid for Service Tax were eligible for refund if rendered beyond the factory or production premises. The Tribunal found that the services claimed by the appellant were indeed used in and in relation to export, meeting the criteria specified in the notification.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority's interpretation of pre and post-export services was incorrect. The Tribunal held that specified services under the notification pertained to services beyond the place of production or manufacture, irrespective of the timing of their utilization. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeals and granting the refund claims to the appellant.