2024 (6) TMI 302 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - rejection on the ground that the goods exported were not 'time sensitive' documents, goods or articles and observed that the service received by the appellant cannot be classified under the category of courier service - HELD THAT - The Department has accepted the Service Tax payment made by the appellant under the category of courier agency . If the silk goods exported by the appellant were not considered as time sensitive documents, then there was no liability for payment of Service Tax under the category of courier agency service . Having accepted the Service Tax paid by the appellant under the category of courier agency service, the Department cannot reject the refund on the ground that the payment of Service Tax under the category of courier agency was not in order. The payment of Service Tax by the appellant for the courier services in connection with export is not in dispute. Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009 allows refund of Service Tax in respect of input services used in connection with export of goods. Since payment of Service Tax and utilization of the services in the export of goods is not in dispute, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the refund of Service Tax paid in terms of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the rejection of a refund claim of Service Tax for courier services used in the export of silk goods under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.

Summary:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Service Tax amounting to Rs.98,782/- for services of a courier agency used for exporting silk goods. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund, stating the goods were not 'time sensitive' and the service did not qualify as 'courier service.' The appellate authority upheld this decision. The appellant argued that the Department had accepted the Service Tax payment under the category of 'Courier Service' and should not question the classification now. The Revenue's Authorized Representative supported the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant paid Service Tax for courier services used in exporting silk goods, which the Department had accepted. Since the goods were exported using courier services, the Service Tax payment under this category was valid. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that courier services for export qualify for refund under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. As the payment and utilization of services for export were undisputed, the Tribunal held the appellant eligible for the refund.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund of Service Tax paid for courier services used in exporting silk goods under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.