2022 (9) TMI 391 - AT - Service Tax

Seeking admission to file additional grounds before this Tribunal for the purposes of final hearing of the appeal - Refund of service tax - place of removal for export of excisable goods and utilization of taxable services beyond the place of removal - proviso (a) and Explanation (A)(i) of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - HELD THAT - The said issue in no more resintegra and the same is a settled proposition of law. The refund in respect of services availed by them at the port of export is available to the exporter. Notification No.41/2012-ST (supra) has been given retrospective effect by amendment Notification No.01/2016-ST dated 3rd February, 2016. Rebate claim - appellant had shown that the total export value was of US 66,060.00, whereas BRC was submitted for US 9950.00 only - HELD THAT - When the present matter came before the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals), he had no occasion to verify the BRC, which was received by the assesse as the impugned order was passed ex-parte. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the subsequent amendments, which have been given the retrospective effect and the details as submitted by the appellant, which entitled the appellant for the rebate, the order in hand is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals), who could decide both the issues - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admission of additional grounds for final hearing of appeal.
2. Disallowance of sanctioned amount by the adjudicating authority.
3. Determination of specified services for refund eligibility.
4. Verification of Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) for rebate calculation.
5. Retrospective effect of Notification No.01/2016-ST.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought admission to file additional grounds for the final hearing of the appeal, which was allowed after explanations by the advocate. The appeal was taken up for final disposal due to the narrow compass of the issue involved.

2. The appeal was against the order-in-appeal disallowing a sanctioned amount of Rs.70,980/- by the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Department's appeal, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

3. The two issues in the appeal were: (a) determination of specified services for refund eligibility based on the place of removal for export of excisable goods and utilization of taxable services, and (b) calculation of rebate amount based on the submitted Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) in relation to the total export value.

4. Concerning issue (a), it was established that exporters are entitled to a refund for services availed at the port of export as per Notification No.41/2012-ST. The retrospective effect of the amendment through Notification No.01/2016-ST clarified the eligibility criteria for refund of service tax paid on specified services.

5. The retrospective effect of Notification No.01/2016-ST was crucial in allowing the appeal by remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not verified the BRC, leading to the setting aside of the order in view of subsequent amendments and detailed submissions by the appellant.

6. The judgment emphasized the importance of retrospective amendments and the need for proper verification of documents like BRC for accurate rebate calculations. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further consideration by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in light of the observations made in the judgment.