9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate/refund. The interpretations of the authorities below that these services are input services and, therefore, when such services are used beyond the place of removal, they are not eligible for credit is misconceived. The definition of input services as given in Cenvat Credit Rules lay down the law with regard to eligibility of credit. When separate definition is given in notification with regard to the specified services for which refund can be claimed, the definition of input services cannot be imported to the application of refund. It is also to be said that the intention of the said notification granting refund/rebate is to make the export of goods free from duty and taxes. The rejection of refund claim on the specified s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.03.2017 Jul.16 to Sept. 16 21,07,594 6,06,549 3. After due process of law, the department rejected the rebate claims partially as given in the table above against which appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order upheld the rejection. Hence this appeal. 4. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri Sai Prasanth, first argued the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal with regard to refund/rebate claim. He submitted that section 35B of the Central Excise Act provides that the appeal shall not lie before the Tribunal against an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.02.2016, the definition of specified services reads as taxable services that have been used beyond factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture and the said goods are for their export. From the amendment, it can be gathered that any services which have been availed at the destination in relation to export of goods would be eligible for grant of rebate. 6. To support his arguments, he relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Polyplex Corporation Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R.821 (Tri.-Del.). He pointed out that though the Notification No.17/2009-ST has been referred to in the said decision, it is only a precursor Notification of 41/2012. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.999/6/2015-Cx., dated 28.02.2015. Since the services have been availed beyond the place of removal, the rejection is legal and proper. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The refund has been rejected alleging that the services have been availed beyond the place of removal. For better appreciation, relevant part of the Notification No.41/2012, prior to amendment is extracted as under:- (A) specified services means (i) in the case of excisable goods, taxable services that have been used beyond the place of removal, for the export of said goods; (ii) in the case of goods other than (i) above, taxable services used for the export of said goods. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be imported to the application of refund. It is also to be said that the intention of the said notification granting refund/rebate is to make the export of goods free from duty and taxes. 12. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Polyplex Corporation Ltd., (supra) has analysed the issue and held as under:- 8. With regard to services, namely, Ocean freight, On-Carriage, and Terminal Handling (Destination), the argument of the learned AR for the Revenue is that services availed by the appellant outside India, they are not entitled to claim refund of Service Tax. To claim refund of Service Tax on services in question provided by the service provider located in India and the service recipient is also lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received by the appellant for such activity is eligible for refund under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. (as reproduced hereinabove). 8. I find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that identical issue has been decided by the Delhi Bench in the case of Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (supra) and I reproduce the ratio as in para 8. 8. With regard to services, namely, Ocean freight, On-Carriage and Terminal Handling (Destination), the argument of the learned AR for the Revenue is that services availed by the appellant outside India, they are not entitled to claim refund of Service Tax. To claim refund of service tax on services in question provided by the service provider located in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
