2021 (9) TMI 77 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - inland haulage Charges - services used beyond the place of removal for export of goods - N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res Integra as the identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI 2015 (11) TMI 972 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that the appellant was responsible for the delivery of the goods in the hands of the appellant s clients. Hence services received by the appellant for such activity is eligible for refund under N/N. 41/2012-ST. Since the inland haulage Charges has been paid by the exporter, they are entitled for the refund of the Service Tax paid on such inland haulage Charges - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of inland haulage Charges used beyond the place of removal for export of goods under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the inland haulage Charges, even if used beyond the place of removal, are eligible for refund under Notification No.41/2012-ST. They cited judgments in support of their argument.

2. The Revenue argued that the place of removal is the port of export and since the inland haulage Charges were used beyond this point, they are not covered under the specified service for refund.

3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. and considered previous judgments. It was noted that the appellant exported excisable goods and used services for export beyond the place of removal, which was the factory gate. The Tribunal found that services received by the appellant for delivering goods to clients' doorsteps were eligible for refund under the notification.

4. Referring to a Delhi Bench judgment in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to claim a refund of service tax on services used for export. The judgment emphasized that ownership of the goods remained with the appellant until they reached foreign buyers.

5. Considering the above precedents and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable. The appellant was deemed entitled to the refund of inland haulage Charges for the export of goods.

6. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the application of precedents to determine the entitlement of the appellant to the refund of inland haulage Charges for the export of goods.