2013 (4) TMI 494 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim rejected to the extent of 50% - as per dept. containers employed by the assessee for transportation of specified goods from the place of manufacture to the export terminal were paid by series of single invoices, which included freight charges for onward transportation for export as well as return of the empty containers to the factory premises - Held that - As decided in C.C.E., Madurai vs. Tata Coffee Ld. (2010 (11) TMI 364 - CESTAT, CHENNAI), Balkrishna Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad (2012 (5) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) & Garware Polyester Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad 2011- IST 400 (CESTAT Mum) have consistently taken the view that inasmuch as the entirety of the said activity is in relation to the transportation of export of the specified goods, refunds claimed in entirety are liable to be paid, in terms of the Notifications No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 as amended by the Notification No.40/2009-ST dated 30.9.2009.. No reason to conclude otherwise, as the reasons recorded in the decisions referred are consistent with a true and fair interpretation of both the Notifications - assesee is declared entitled to refunds as claimed.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim disallowance based on transportation of goods in containers and freight charges. Interpretation of Central Government Notifications No.17/2009-ST and No.40/2009-ST.

The judgment addressed the issue of disallowance of refund claims by the adjudicating authority concerning the transportation of specified goods in containers and associated freight charges. The Central Government Notifications No.17/2009-ST and No.40/2009-ST, exempting specified taxable services from service tax, were central to the dispute. The condition for exemption required the exporter to use the specified service for exporting the specified goods.

The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim partially, citing that the freight charges for onward transportation for export and return of empty containers were included in single invoices. They concluded that the portion of service tax paid on the return of empty containers was not eligible for refund. However, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that activities related to transportation of export goods should be considered as a whole for refund eligibility. Citing decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal emphasized that if the entire activity is related to the transportation of specified goods for export, refunds should be granted as per the relevant Notifications.

In light of the consistent interpretation of the Notifications by previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashed the orders confirming the disallowance of refund claims, and declared the appellant entitled to the refunds as claimed. The judgment highlighted the importance of a true and fair interpretation of the Notifications to determine refund eligibility, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. Notably, no costs were awarded in this decision.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the issues surrounding the disallowance of refund claims based on transportation activities and freight charges, emphasizing the interpretation of the Central Government Notifications as pivotal in determining the outcome of the case.