2018 (5) TMI 675 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - services received prior to April 2008 - refund rejected on the ground that export clearances have been made beyond the period specified in the notification - Held that - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of M/s SRF Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Jaipur-I 2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it has been clearly laid down that the exporter should not be unduly burdened with a condition to establish a service provider was registered under port services, when making a claim for refund for such services under N/N. 41/2007-ST - refund allowed. Refund claim - services availed of commission agent - Held that - the issue is not pressed by the Ld. Advocate, impugned order upheld. Refund claim - export clearances made prior to 01.04.2008 - Held that - this aspect is not forthcoming from the annexure to the SCN - it is fit to remand this issue to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of this issue as per law - matter on remand. Refund claim - courier services - Held that - the matter is being remanded to enable the appellants to produce all the related invoices issued by the service provider. Once the appellant is able to establish the co-relation between the goods exported and/or export documents and the invoices issued by such service provider, the refund should be sanctioned - matter on remand. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application rejection based on various grounds including non-production of export documents, rejection of refund claim for port services and commission agent, rejection of refund for courier services due to missing IEC code, confusion regarding the period of refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellants applied for a refund of service tax paid on services used for exporting motor vehicles. The original authority rejected most of the refund claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to this appeal.
2. The appellant's advocate argued that certain services were received before April 2008, but as per a Board's Circular, the refund claims for services used for exports made in March-June 2008 could be filed until December 2008. The advocate also relied on a Tribunal decision to contest the denial of refund for port services.
3. The advocate further contested the rejection of part of the refund claim related to a commission agent and courier services. He cited case laws to support his arguments against the rejection based on missing IEC code on courier invoices.
4. The respondent's representative countered the arguments, pointing out that part of the claim was for services received before April 2008, as per the adjudication order.
5. The Tribunal examined the issues raised. It referred to a previous decision regarding the burden on exporters to establish registration under port services and allowed the appeal on that ground. The Tribunal did not interfere with the rejection of the commission agent's refund claim but remanded the issue of the period of refund and courier services for reconsideration.
6. The Tribunal ordered a remand for reevaluation of the issues related to the period of refund and courier services, directing the adjudicating authority to review the matter in light of applicable laws and precedents.

This detailed analysis outlines the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the issues, and the final decision to remand certain aspects for further consideration.