9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export of goods. Consequently, there is no doubt that the appellant falls within the gamut of the notification whose stated purpose is to grant refund of service tax on services used for export. It is not in dispute that the service tax was paid by the appellant and such services have been used for export of the goods by the appellant. Consequently, I am of the view that rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST is required to be paid to the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 68 of the Finance Act, 1984 from claiming the rebate when such taxable service has been provided to the exporter. In the present case, they were required to pay the service tax on reverse charge mechanism. However, he submits that the service which was provided by other person is used for export of goods by them. The said interpretation of clause 3 (b) would defeat the very purpose of the notification which has been issued for grant of rebate of service tax on the taxable service received by an exporter and used for export of goods. Such a limited interpretation would deny the benefit to this exporter who had paid the service tax under reverse charge mechanism. 6. Learned advocate also submitted that the clause 2(e) of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clause 3(b) reads as follows. "3. the rebate shall be claimed in the following manner, namely:- (a).... (b) the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification;" 10. The appellant being the receiver of the GTA service was required to pay the service tax on reverse charge basis. In terms of clause 3(b) since the appellant is the person liable to pay the service tax, in this case, the view taken is that claim of rebate of such service tax is not admissible. The argument of the appellant is that the rebate should be paid inasmuch as the service of GTA has been used for export of goods by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the GTA services for which the appellant has claimed rebate of service tax under the notification has not been used for export of goods. Consequently, there is no doubt that the appellant falls within the gamut of the notification whose stated purpose is to grant refund of service tax on services used for export. In terms of the decisions of the Hon'ble supreme Court cited above, once it is determined by strict means that the appellant will be eligible for the benefit of the notification, it is necessary to interpret the wording of the notification so as to achieve the purpose and object for which the notification has been issued. Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Malwa Industries (supra) has held as under: "20. We, as noticed hereinbefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
