2023 (5) TMI 242 - AT - Service Tax

Partial rejection of claim for refund of tax - documentary evidence in support of technical testing and analysis was not available - supplier not listed in the contract between appellant and the buyer overseas for not having been filed within 60 days from the end of the quarter in which exports had been effected - HELD THAT - The present dispute relates to refund claimed by application dated 8th August 2008 in relation to exports effected before April 2008 that should, under the prevailing procedure, have been filed by end of May 2008. By amendment of November 2008, claims were permitted to be filed within six months from the last date of the quarter in which the exports took place and, considering the difficulties expressed by the trade, Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) clarified in March 2009 that the new deadlines would be applicable to exports of the last quarter of the financial year preceding the amendment also, subject to such applications having been filed. That the reimbursement scheme, which at the time of effecting the exports requiring claims to be filed within two months from closure of the relevant quarter and, since then, extended to six months from closure of the relevant quarter, enabled the appellant, thereby, to seek relief thereon till 30th September 2008 in relation to exports effected till 31st March 2008 is a reasonable deduction - The impugned order has also not adduced any reason for not extending the benefit that the clarification circular of the Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) considered appropriate for refunds pertaining to the period of dispute. Non-compliance with serial no. 3 in the Schedule to the notification prescribing the manner of reimbursement - HELD THAT - The sole condition is that a written agreement between the buyer and the seller should stipulate testing and analysis' of the export goods. As pointed out by Learned Counsel, there is no restriction on the number of, or location at which, tests are to be carried out. The precaution of carrying out such tests before shipment, to minimise the risk of non-acceptance of cargo before loading on outbound conveyance, is not beyond the scope of the eligible service in the impugned notification; nor has it been attributed to any activity other than in relation to the export goods. The denial of refund on such a rigorous consideration is not in accordance with the spirit of reimbursement designed as a policy instrument. There are no reason to sustain the impugned order - the rejection of refund claim is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of claim for refund of tax charged under Finance Act, 1994 on services procured in connection with export of goods, based on eligibility criteria and time limits specified in the notification.

Issue 1: Eligibility of input services for refund claim:
The appellant, an exporter of 'iron ore', had procured various services, including 'technical testing and analysis', and claimed a refund of &8377; 96,58,828. The original authority accepted &8377; 20,97,907 but declined the remaining amount. The rejected portion included &8377; 10,560 for 'technical testing and analysis' due to lack of documentary evidence and &8377; 75,51,171 for not filing within the specified time limit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of reimbursement scheme for export-oriented units (EOUs):
The reimbursement scheme is designed for entities like the appellant operating under the 'export-oriented unit (EOU)' scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy. Such units have advantages in terms of tax reimbursement over the 'monetisation' of accumulated credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to their operational structure and lack of domestic offtake.

Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements for refund claims:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that goods/services related to reimbursement have been used for generating exports. While mechanisms exist to prevent loading of taxes onto exported goods, strict compliance with procedural requirements should not overshadow the intent of the policy.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim was not justified. The appellant had valid reasons for the 'technical testing and analysis' service and had complied with the revised time limits for filing the claim. The denial of refund based on strict interpretations was deemed inconsistent with the reimbursement policy's spirit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the refund claim was allowed.