2023 (3) TMI 944 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - export of goods - input services - documentation charges and agency fees - draft survey charges - bunker survey charges - sampling and analysis charges for export of excisable goods i.e. Cement - applicability of N/N. 52/2011-ST dated 30.12.2011 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the use of these services for export of goods. The only dispute raised by the appellant is that classification of services is not correct. Revenue cannot raise objection challenging the classification at the recipient end which is a settled law. On this ground refund cannot be denied. The same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the order dated 12.02.2013 2013 (4) TMI 461 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein it was held that The entire exercise of the Revenue to reject the refund claim is non-starter in as much as it is settled law that the classification of the product or services at the recipient's end cannot be done so by the authorities. In the case in hand, I find that the classification of Technical Testing Analysis and Customs House Agent's services are being sought to be classified under various other services and refund is sought to be rejected. This is not in consonance with the law which has been laid down by various judicial pronouncements. The issue is no longer res-integra - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund under Notification No. 52/2011-ST for specific services related to export of excisable goods.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to a refund under Notification No. 52/2011-ST for services utilized in the export of excisable goods, specifically documentation charges, agency fees, draft survey charges, bunker survey charges, and sampling and analysis charges for Cement. The appellant's counsel argued that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the appellant by the Tribunal previously. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), supported the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the records, it was observed that there was no dispute regarding the use of the services for export purposes. The main contention raised by the appellant was the incorrect classification of services, which the Revenue objected to. However, it was established that the Revenue cannot challenge the classification at the recipient's end, leading to the conclusion that the refund cannot be denied based on this ground. This position was supported by a previous Tribunal order dated 12.02.2013, which highlighted a similar scenario where a refund claim was rejected due to misclassification of services.

The lower authorities had rejected the refund claims based on the premise that the services provided did not fall under the categories specified in Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, it was noted that the service provider had discharged the Service Tax liability under the appropriate categories, as evidenced by certificates and invoices. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed unjustified as the classification of services at the recipient's end cannot be altered by the authorities, as established by legal precedents cited during the proceedings.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, concluding that the issue had already been settled in previous cases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.