2013 (4) TMI 461 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax under technical Testing & Analysis service or CHA service - notification No.17/2009-ST The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim but rejected an amount of Rs.96,019/- and of Rs.6,936/-, holding that the services covering the rejected amounts have not been provided in relation to export of goods. 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 recipients end cannot be done by the authorities. - this view has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Akanksha Overseas Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Surat 2012 (11) TMI 402 CESTAT - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on service classification under Notification No.17/2009-ST for export of goods.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the rejection of a refund claim for Service Tax paid on various services related to the export of goods under Notification No.17/2009-ST. The lower authorities rejected parts of the refund claim, stating that the services for the rejected amounts were not provided in relation to the export of goods. The appellant argued that the services were provided under Technical Testing & Analysis service or Customs House Agent's service, supported by invoices. The appellant cited previous decisions to support their claim. The Additional Commissioner supported the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal noted that the refund claims were rejected solely based on the services not falling under the categories specified in the notification.

The Tribunal observed that the service provider had discharged the Service Tax liability under Technical Testing and Analysis service and Customs House Agent's service, as evidenced by certificates and invoices. It emphasized that authorities cannot classify services at the recipient's end. The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim based on reclassification of services inconsistent with established legal principles and previous judicial decisions. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim was unsustainable.

Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles and established precedents in determining the eligibility of refund claims based on service classifications under relevant notifications.