2017 (7) TMI 527 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - credit on various input services, claimed to have been used in the export of the goods - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Held that - The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the refund claim on the services which were not specified under the said notification as on the date of the claim so as to be eligible to the refund - retrospective effect cannot be granted to the said notification unless specifically, mentioned thereunder - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA No. Commr(A)/225/VDR-II/2011 dated 01.06.2011
- Eligibility of refund claim for service tax on input services used in export
- Rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Interpretation of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007
- Retroactive effect of notification on refund eligibility

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against OIA No. Commr(A)/225/VDR-II/2011 dated 01.06.2011, which pertained to a refund claim for service tax on input services used in the export of goods between July 2008 to December 2008. The adjudicating authority allowed a partial refund, leading to an appeal by the appellant.

2. The Ld. A.R representing the respondent argued that the refund claim was partly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the eligibility based on the facts and evidence presented. The rejection was primarily due to the services not being specified under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, which was later amended by Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009.

3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision to reject the refund claim, citing detailed findings in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.9 of the order. The rejection was based on the services not being included in the list specified under the relevant notification at the time of the claim, thus rendering them ineligible for refund.

4. Upon review, the tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the Ld. A.R for the Revenue. The tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claim was rightly rejected for services not specified under the notification at the time of the claim. The tribunal emphasized that retrospective effect cannot be granted to a notification unless explicitly mentioned.

5. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to reject the refund claim based on the interpretation of the relevant notification and the lack of eligibility for services not covered under it. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with notification requirements for refund claims in indirect tax matters.