2012 (7) TMI 739 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - condition No.(iii) of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 3/2008-ST dated 19.2.2008, i.e. posting of exporter s invoice and corresponding Shipping Bills on the consignment notes/lorry way Bills had not been done - Held that - As the exported goods are transported from the appellant s factory to Kakinada Port directly and considering peculiar nature of the goods, the entire consignments covered by one Shipping Bill cannot be transported by a single lorry, as an export consignment is in the order of 6000 to 8000 tones. Therefore, it requires to be aggregated at the port premises before the Shipping documents are prepared - as the fact of exports is not being disputed it cannot be the case that the goods are exported from Kakkinada Port without being transported from the factory of the appellants as claimed by them, therefore the compliance of Condition No. (iii) should be ascertained by broadly correlating the evidence relating to transport and service tax paid on such transport charges and the quantity exported. Claim for refund of service tax on Godown rent may also be considered afresh after ascertaining the veracity of the claim of reimbursement by the appellants - matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax on transportation charges for export goods; Compliance with conditions for refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.; Procedural violation in mentioning export details on documents.

Analysis:
The appeals involved a common Order-in-Appeal regarding the denial of refunds to the appellant for service tax paid on transportation charges for exporting Potassium Feldspar. The appellants claimed refunds under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. amended by Notification No. 3/2008, which were partly rejected due to procedural violations. The main issue revolved around the fulfillment of conditions for claiming refunds, specifically the mention of export details on documents like lorry receipts and shipping bills.

The advocate for the appellants argued that the rejection was based on procedural violations, emphasizing a broad correlation between the export goods and documents. He cited relevant legal precedents to support his argument. On the other hand, the DR reiterated that the conditions regarding export details on documents had to be fulfilled, and since the appellants failed to do so, the rejection was justified.

The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and examining the records, highlighted the conditions for refund under the relevant notifications. It was acknowledged that the exported goods were transported directly from the factory to the port for export. Due to the nature of the goods, multiple lorries were used to transport the export consignments, necessitating aggregation at the port premises before preparing shipping documents. The Tribunal noted that the fact of exports was not disputed, and the compliance with Condition No. (iii) should be evaluated by broadly correlating evidence on transport, service tax payments, and quantity exported.

The Tribunal concluded that the denial of refunds to the extent mentioned should be set aside, and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to present their case. The decisions of the Tribunal cited by the appellant, which overlooked procedural violations while granting refunds, were deemed applicable to the present case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the judgment pronounced on 16.12.2011.