9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 666 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service Tax on the specified service used for export of the goods - nexus of input service with the exports - HELD THAT - In para 6.2 of C.B.E. C. in Para 3.2.1 of Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T., dated 19-1-2010, C.B.E. C. has clarified that only a broad co-relation of input services and Service Tax paid is required to be made with respect to exports. Though the clarification was with respect to Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) but it clearly conveys that in budget 2009 the scheme under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was simplified in Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. by providing self certification or Chartered Accountant s certification about co-relation and nexus between input Services the exports. That above logic can be followed for Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) where such simplification of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. may not be available. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on jurisdictional authority for separate Service Tax Registrations. Analysis: The appeal was filed by M/s S K Sarawagi & Co. Pvt Ltd. against the rejection of refund claims amounting to Rs.1,80,982/- and Rs.1,02,665/- in relation to the export of iron ore fines. The dispute centered around the admissibility of the refund concerning two separate Service Tax Registrations held by the appellant in Visakhapatnam and Kolkata. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refunds based on jurisdictional authority, emphasizing strict compliance with the conditions specified in the relevant Notifications. Under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, as amended by Notification No.03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008, exporters must file refund applications for Service Tax on specified services used for exports. The appellant, M/s S K Sarawagi & Co. Pvt Ltd., submitted refund claims in accordance with these Notifications, leading to the appeal. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant's claim for refund from the Kolkata jurisdictional authority, despite the matter relating to their Visakhapatnam Registration, was not tenable. The jurisdictional authority for refund claims related to services rendered by the Visakhapatnam unit should be the Division-IV of Service Tax Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, not the jurisdictional authority of the Kolkata Office. The appellant attempted to justify their claim through a Certificate from a Chartered Accountant, asserting no duplication of claims. The issue of jurisdictional authority was not raised in the Show Cause Notice, leading to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exceeding the notice's scope, which was deemed impermissible. The appellant's counsel referenced C.B.E. & C. Circulars to argue for self-certification sufficiency in refund sanctioning processes, emphasizing a simplified scheme for refund processes. The judgment ultimately set aside the impugned order, restoring the Orders-in-Original dated 15.07.2011 and 09.08.2011, allowing the appeals filed by the appellant with consequential benefits. The decision was based on the lack of sustainability of the impugned order in light of the arguments and evidence presented during the appeal process.
|
