9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... airport service under notification no. 17/2009-ST only by amending notification no. 37/2010-ST w.e.f. 28/6/2010 i.e. much after the period of refund in the present case of the appellant. Therefore it is clear that exemption to Airport service by way of refund was not available during the period July, 2009 to March, 2010. Limitation bar - refund pertaining to the period 7/7/2009 to 27/7/2009 - Held that: - as per condition (c) of para (1) of the Notification No. 17/09-ST, one of the important condition is that payment of service tax should be made by the service recipient, therefore before complying this condition refund does not arise - for services pertaining to the period 7/7/2009 to 27/7/2009 the service provider MIAL raised bills itself on 10/8/2009 therefore it is obvious that payment for said period was made after raising bill by MIAL. For this period refund claim was filed on 27/7/2010 which is well within the one year therefore refund is not time bar. Board Circular No. 354/256/2009-TRU dated 1/1/2010 - the same is not dealing with the issue in hand. It does not deal with the issue that even if the input service is not specified in the notification refund can be gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment was made vide Notification No. 37/2010-ST dated 28/6/2010 whereby Sr. No. 18 was inserted in the main notification providing for refund of service tax paid under Airport Services falling under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of service provided by airports authority or any other person in any airport in respect of the export of goods. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that Airport services were not notified at the time of export of the goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST during the period July, 2009 to September, 2009. He submits that refund claims were filed on 27/7/2010 and 23/9/2010 at the same time the amended notification was in enforce. According to which the refund of service tax paid on Airport service was admissible. He referred to the Board Circular No. 354/256/2009-TRU dated 1/1/2010 which clarifies that Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7/7/2009 does not bar its applicability to exports that have taken place prior to its issuance. He further submits that notification allowing refund on service tax paid in respect of export was issued with sole objective of removing burden of service tax from the exports goods and the pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that refund was rightly rejected on the Airport service received by the appellant for the reason that period of refund is from July, 2009 to March 2010 whereas the Airport service was incorporated vide Sr.No. 18 vide notification no. 37/10-ST dated 28/6/2010 therefore the exports made as well as service received during the period when Airport service was not covered under exemption notification No. 17/09-ST therefore refund was clearly inadmissible. He submits that this Tribunal has considered the very same issue in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai vide Order No. A/3015-3017/15/STB dated 2/9/2015 whereby on the same services received from the same MIAL for the period December, 2009 to May, 2010 refund was rejected on the ground that at the time of exports of the goods and receipt of the services, Airport service was not eligible for the refund under notification No. 17/2009-ST therefore issue is no more res-integra. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6.The fact is not much under dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng charges. The services rendered by MIAPL will not fall under any of the two categories as the service tax discharged by MIAPL is under Section 65(105)(zzm). The service tax paid under the category of services provided by Airport authority under Section 65(105)(zzm) were inserted in Notification 17/2009-ST by Notification 37/2010-ST dated 28.06.2010. The arguments of the learned Counsel is that this notification should be read as being effective in the Notification 17/2009-ST from the date it was issued is not acceptable. Notification 17/2009-ST specifically grants refund of tax paid on services provided under the category as per classification as mentioned therein. The service tax paid by MIAPL is under the category which was not classified under Notification 17/2009-ST as it existed during the period when the services were received by the appellant for fueling the aircrafts which are on foreign. In view of the above, we hold that both the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower authorities. 7. Appeals filed by the appellants are devoid of merits and are reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
