Whether service tax refund of every service used in export of goods available?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2692

Case:-SHREE AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

Citation:-2015 (37) S.T.R. 494 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-The appellants have filed this appeal against order-in-Appeal Nos. 11-12/ (DK)-C.E.,/JPR-I/2009, dated 22-1-2009 which upheld the Order in-Original Nos. 158-159/R/2007-08, dated 7-4-2008 vide which the appellants' refund claim of Rs. 51,873/- was rejected.
The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 51,873/- in terms of Notification No. 41 /2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. This refund was claimed on the ground that this amount of Service Tax was paid in relation to the export of goods. The said claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that none of the services in respect of which the refund has been claimed are covered for the purpose of the refund under Notification No. 40/2007-S.T. or Notification No. 41 /2007-S.T.

Appellant contention:-The appellants have contended that Terminal Handling Charges at port which amounted to Rs. 49,892/-, marine insurance which amounted to Rs. 918/- and railway freight and handling charges from ICD which amounted to Rs. 1,063/- [total 51,873/-] were very much in relation to export of goods and therefore refund is admissible.

Respondent Contention:- The respondent reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the appellants' contentions. We find that the said notifications allowed refund of Service Tax in relation to only those services which are listed therein and which were received in relation to export of goods.
The services in respect of which the appellants have claimed the impugned refund are not listed in either of the two notifications. The appellants have not been able to give any evidence that the refund claimed by them is in respect of services which are listed in these notifications. It needs to be mentioned here that it being a case of refund, the onus is on the appellants to show that they are eligible for refund and evidently the appellants have failed to discharge that onus. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is therefore rejected.

Decision:- Appeal Rejected.

Comment:-The substance of the case is that refund of Service Tax paid in relation to export of goods shall be allowed only for those services which are listed in Notification Nos. 40/2007-S.T. and 41/2007-S.T. and that have been received in relation to export of goods. For claiming refund on other services not specifically listed in above notifications, onus shall be on assessee to show that they are covered by the list of specified services and eligible for refund.

Prepared By: Meet Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2692

Post a Comment

Query