2023 (6) TMI 1196 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of the service tax paid - export of goods - agreement/contract or any other documents with Commission Agents located outside India not provided - Services of Inland Transportation. Rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant has not provided any agreement/contract or any other documents with Commission Agents located outside India - exemption under N/N. 41/2007 - HELD THAT - The appellant has produced the confirmation of the contract which clearly shows the payment of commission at a fixed rate on the FOB Value of the export and this issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of MITTAL INTERNATIONAL VERSUS CCE, ROHTAK/GURGAON 2017 (3) TMI 1512 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where it was held that if the invoice of the commission agent is on record, in that circumstance, the appellants have complied with condition of the notification and the appellant is entitled for availing the refund - refund allowed. Rejection of refund in relation to the claim for Service Tax paid on Services of Inland Transportation - HELD THAT - This issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. CAP SEAL (INDORE) PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, INDORE 2016 (12) TMI 1132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein the Tribunal has specifically held that the service tax paid on transportation of empty container from port to factory is admissible as refund - refund allowed on this issue. Refund also rejected on the ground that the service providers are not registered for the Services such as CHA/Port Services - HELD THAT - This issue has also been considered by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR VERSUS M/S. ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES (P) LTD. 2019 (1) TMI 73 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that the Registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 41/2007 - refund allowed. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 1,26,820.

Grounds for rejection of refund claim:

1. Commission Agents Agreement: The appellant provided a "Confirmation of the Contract" for payment of commission, which was considered sufficient evidence for the refund claim. The Tribunal's decision in Mittal International Vs. CCE supported this position.

2. Service Tax on Inland Transportation: The services of transportation used for export consignment were eligible for refund as per Notification. The Tribunal's decision in CAP & SEAL (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE further validated this claim.

3. Registration of Service Providers: The service provider's registration under one service only did not justify denial of refund, as per CBEC Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST. The decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Union of India Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. supported this argument.

Judgment:
After considering submissions and case records, the Tribunal found all objections raised by the Revenue to be legally unsustainable. The confirmation of the contract provided by the appellant sufficed as evidence for the commission payment, as per the notification and relevant precedents. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld that the service tax paid on transportation for export goods was admissible for refund, as established in previous cases. Regarding the issue of service provider registration, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court to conclude that registration under a particular service was not a prerequisite for exemption under Notification No. 41/2007. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

*(Pronounced on 27. 06. 2023)*

← Previous Next →