2016 (12) TMI 994 - AT - Service Tax

Whether Appellant is eligible to refund of services availed in relation to export of goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007? - Held that - As per Notification No.41/2007-ST certain co-relations are required to be made before sanctioning the refund claims. It is observed from CBEC Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 that exporters were facing certain difficulties in relation to one to one co-relation between input services and the exports made - Ld.AR appearing on behalf of the Appellant could not produce the required documents before the Bench to ascertain as to what extent co-relation can be made and whether any liberal view can be taken in these proceedings in view of CBEC Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010. In the Grounds-of-Appeal filed by the Revenue also no mention of this Circular is made and whether the same is applicable to the facts in hand. Thus, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to give specific findings with respect to CBEC Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 whether the claim of the Appellant is covered by the clarifications so issued - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of services availed in relation to export of goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case is whether the Appellant is eligible for a refund of services availed in connection with the export of goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The Revenue contended that the Appellant should seek a refund within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the goods were exported, emphasizing the need for a direct correlation between duty paying bills and export documents. The Revenue argued that discrepancies existed between the vessel names in the documents provided by the Appellant and the duty paying documents. On the other hand, the Respondent's consultant highlighted a CBEC Circular stating that a broad correlation between input services, Service Tax paid, and quantity exported suffices for refund eligibility. The First Appellate Authority had relied on this Circular to allow the refund claim. However, the Adjudicating Authority had not given specific findings on this matter. The Tribunal noted the lack of specific documents before them to determine the extent of correlation possible and whether a liberal view could be taken based on the Circular. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to provide specific findings on the applicability of the CBEC Circular to the Appellant's claim.

The Tribunal allowed the Appellant's appeal by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. The Appellant was directed to have a personal hearing and submit all relevant documents to demonstrate the correlation between duty paying documents and export documents as per the CBEC Circular dated 19.01.2010. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority should consider the clarifications issued in the Circular when deciding the case in the remand proceedings, ensuring a fair opportunity for the Appellant to present their case effectively.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with the requirements set forth in relevant notifications and circulars when seeking a refund of services related to exports. It underscores the need for a clear correlation between input services, taxes paid, and exports, as well as the significance of providing necessary documentation to support refund claims. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case underscores the importance of thorough examination and adherence to regulatory guidelines in such matters.