2015 (10) TMI 2357 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax - services used for Supply of ATF for foreign going aircraft - Refund claimed on grounds that ATF which has been fueled by them in air crafts that were undertaking foreign voyage and hence it is export of goods - Appellant contends that as per Notification 37/2010 services provided by air port authority to any other persons is included for refund of service tax - Held That - Service tax discharged by MIAPL is under Section 65(105)(zzm) - Notification 17/2009-ST specifically grants refund of tax paid on services provided under category mentioned therein and service tax paid by MIAPL is under category which was not classified under Notification 17/2009-ST - Found no merit in appeal - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid for services rendered by Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. (MIAPL) to the appellant for supplying ATF to foreign going aircraft from Aviation Servicing facility.

Analysis:
The issue in this case pertains to the refund of service tax paid by the appellant to MIAPL for services rendered while supplying ATF for foreign going aircraft. The appellant claimed the refund on the grounds that the ATF fueled in aircraft undertaking foreign voyages constitutes export of goods. However, both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim.

The appellant's counsel argued that Notification 37/2010, amending Notification 17/2009, extended the refund of service tax to services provided by the airport authority to any other persons. Citing precedents like Devarsons Industries P. Ltd. and Fomento (Karnataka) Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd., the counsel contended that in cases of export, no taxes should be paid, and refunds should be granted.

The Deputy Commissioner reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the service tax paid on services rendered by MIAPL for fueling aircraft on foreign trips during December 2009 to May 2010.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the services provided by MIAPL did not fall under the categories specified in Notification 17/2009 for refund of service tax. The service tax paid by MIAPL was under a different category (Section 65(105)(zzm)), not covered by the notification. The Tribunal held that the amendment in Notification 37/2010 could not be retroactively applied to the earlier notification. Consequently, the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the appellant's refund claim.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.