what will be the place of removal in case of exports?

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3389

Case - LIFE LONG INDIA LIMITED VersusCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., MEERUT-I
Citation- 2016 (43) S.T.R. 314 (Tri. - Del.)
Brief Facts - These appeals are filed by the same appellant against three orders-in-original dated 30-9-2014; 23-7-2014 and 14-10-2014 passed by the ld. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dehradun, rejecting claims for refund of Service Tax remitted by the appellant.The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods namely motor vehicles parts and is registered with the Department of Service Tax. It filed claims for refund of Service Tax under provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T., dated 29-6-2012. This notification grants rebate of Service Tax paid on taxable services received by an exporter of goods used for export of goods which were subject to the extent, the manner and conditions specified in the notification. The appellant utilized certain services like Goods Transport Agency and Warehousing Agency services at the port of export of its goods claiming that the place of removal of the exported goods is the factory gate and that on ‘input services’ used at the port, it was entitled to rebate as per the notification, and was thus entitled to refund.

Appellant’s Contention- The impugned order concurrently rejected the claim for refund on a plurality of grounds. The authority held that since the place of removal in the case of export was the port of export and services were not utilized by the appellant beyond the place of removal, the appellant was not entitled to refund. The authority also rejected appellant’s claim on the bar of limitation. Paragraph 3(g) of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. stipulates that “the claim for rebate of Service Tax paid on this specified services used for export of goods shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the said goods”. The authority found that claims for refund were substantially beyond the period of limitation.

Respondent’s Contention- In respect of those claims which were found by the impugned order as well as the primary adjudication orders to be beyond the period of limitation, ld. counsel for the appellants contends that since the delay was not considerable, the authorities below should have exercised discretion and condoned the same. This contention does not commend acceptance by the Tribunal. Paragraph 3(g) of the Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. clearly indicates the period of limitation and provides no discretion for condonation of the delay. In the circumstances, it cannot be gainfully contended that the authority had a reservoir of discretion to condone the delay, if satisfied with reasons for the delay for making an application for refund.

Reasoning of Judgment – Insofar as the finding that the services were not used beyond the place of removal, it is clear that the place of removal is not the factory gate as claimed by the appellant but is the port from where the goods were removed for export. On the analyses above, the conclusions in the impugned orders as to the unsustainability of refund claims submitted by the appellant, are impeccable and warrant no appellate interference. There are no merits in the appeals which are therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

Appeal Dismissed.
Comment – The gist of the case is that the assessee was exporting certain goods & has filed claims for refund of Service Tax under provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T., dated 29-6-2012. Further The appellant utilized certain services like Goods Transport Agency and Warehousing Agency services at the port of export of its goods claiming that the place of removal of the exported goods is the factory gate and that on ‘input services’ used at the port, it was entitled to rebate as per the notification. But the revenue contended that the services were not used beyond the place of removal. It is clear that the place of removal is not the factory gate, as claimed by the appellant, but is the port from where the goods were removed for export and thus the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
Prepared by- Alakh Bhandari

Comments

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3389

Post a Comment

Query