2018 (10) TMI 657 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - service tax paid on CHA Services - expenses incurred by the appellant beyond the place of removal - Case of Revenue that CHA expenses incurred were not in accordance with notification No. 41/2012-ST, dated 29.06.2012 as the CHA expenses were incurred before the place of removal and not after the place of removal and hence the appellant is not eligible for refund. Held that - The amendment to the statutory provisions, vide Finance Act, 2016, has finally put the dispute to rest - Amendment of notification issued under section 93A of Finance Act, 1994 has clarified that refund on such services allowed - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax on CHA services for export of goods. Interpretation of notification No. 41/2012-ST and notification No. 1/2016-ST. Eligibility for refund based on the place of removal. Applicability of statutory provisions post-amendment.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the refund of service tax amounting to ?51,440 paid on Custom House Agency (CHA) services used for exporting goods. The refund was initially sanctioned but was later appealed by Revenue, arguing that the CHA expenses were incurred before the place of removal, making the appellant ineligible for the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund order, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's advocate argued that the lower appellate authority overlooked notification No. 1/2016-ST, which allows input services to be availed beyond the factory premises, making the appellant eligible for rebate retrospectively from 01.07.2012. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower appellate authority.

Upon review, it was found that the dispute pertained to the expenses incurred by the appellant beyond the place of removal, i.e., Krishnapatnam/Chennai Port. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been settled in previous decisions. The amendment to statutory provisions through Finance Act, 2016, clarified the eligibility for rebate retrospectively. The amendment specified that service tax rebate denied previously would now be granted under the revised notification.

Considering the statutory provisions and the clarification provided by the amendment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and upheld the Order-in-Original, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.