9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 939 - AT - Service TaxRefund/rebate of SBC and KKC paid on services used for supply of ATF to the foreign going vessels - Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed against the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) or not - Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The appellants have admitted the fact that the rebate/refund claim filed under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 pertains to exportation of goods. Insofar as the dispute relating to export of service is concerned, Section 86 ibid provides for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal provisions contained in Section 35 B ibid apply to the exportation of goods. The first proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 35B mandates that in case of rebate of duty of excise on the exportation of goods, no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide such appeal. In the present case, since the issue relates to rebate/refund pertain to goods, the case will squarely falls under Section 35B ibid and not under Section 86 ibid. In view of the fact that the goods were exported by the appellants, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In such eventuality, the provisions contained in Section 35EE ibid would apply for filing of revision application before the Central Government. The preliminary submissions made by Revenue should be accepted that the present appeals filed by the appellants are not maintainable before the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeal against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund/rebate of Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) paid on services used for supply of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) to foreign going vessels.
In this case, the appellants filed refund applications under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 for exporting ATF without payment of Central Excise Duty. The original authority partially sanctioned the refund, rejecting the claim amount for service tax paid on certain taxable services due to the absence of provisions for refund of Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the matter pertained to SBC and KKC paid on services for supplying ATF to foreign vessels. The appellants countered, citing Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, asserting the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, after examining the case records, it was established that the dispute involved goods, not services, related to exportation. As per Section 35B of the Act, no appeal lies to the Tribunal for rebate of duty on goods exported, directing the appellants to file a revision application under Section 35EE before the Central Government. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating they were not maintainable, but allowed the appellants to seek appropriate remedies as per the statute. This judgment primarily addresses the issue of jurisdiction concerning the Tribunal's authority to entertain appeals related to refund/rebate claims on goods exported, specifically in the context of Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) paid on services for supplying Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) to foreign vessels. The decision clarifies the distinction between appeals concerning goods and services under Section 86 and Section 35B of the Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction for rebate claims on goods exported, directing such matters to be resolved through revision applications under Section 35EE before the Central Government. This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving jurisdictional disputes over refund/rebate claims on exported goods, providing clarity on the appropriate legal recourse for such matters.
|
