2018 (12) TMI 861 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Rebate of service tax paid – export of goods – N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 – Held that:- The issue is no more resintegra in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal holding a consistent view – this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata vs. SSK Exports Ltd. & others [2017 (11) TMI 299 – CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein under similar circumstances, Revenue has contended that the refund claim for each shipping bill should be examined on individual basis instead of overall basis – The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that there is no requirement to determine FOB value shipping bill wise, to determine the formula enumerated in Para 1 (c) or in Para 3(i) of the notification and the rebate claim should be allowed in full when the assessee has specified the said condition on overall basis – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/75418/2018 – FO/76536/
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
amount of ₹ 1,09,850/-, after making following discussions and findings: Discussion & Findings I have carefully gone through the claim for refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of the said goods along with all the documents furnished by the said claimant in support of their refund claim of service tax under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 as amended for the period from 06.08.14 to 30.12.14 (LEO Date), the reasons of the Show Cause Notice and the submissions made by the said claimant. The findings are: I. -that the said claimant has filed refund claim for ₹ 2,48,482/- on 05.08.15, which is within one year from the date of export of the said goods in terms of para 3(g) of the said notification ; II. -that the said claimant declared that no CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the specified service used for export of the said goods has been taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; III. -that the sale proceeds in respect of the expor
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t above, I found that services in respect of the said invoices mentioned at the brief fact above are the specified services in terms of the said notification which has been rendered for the export of the said goods for the relevant period of claim and therefore, fulfilled the conditions/requirements of the said notification and the said amount is admissible for refund. VII. -that in the claim against all the Shipping Bills No.4181994 dated 31.07.14; 4322308 dated 08.08.14 & 4359653 dated 11.08.14, the difference between the amount of claim for refund against the shipping bill and the amount of rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 is less than twenty percent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 of the said notification. Therefore, claim amount involving ₹ 1,05,059/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Fifty Nine) only, as detailed in Table-II Sl.No.1,2 &3 (Col.No.8), is not admissible for refund as it does not fulfill the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
an amount of ₹ 1,38,632/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two) only, claimed by the said claimant is admissible for refund of Service Tax paid on taxable specified services and an amount of ₹ 1,09,850/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) only not admissible for refund in terms of the said notification there pass the following order: 2. On appeal the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held the appellant eligible to get refund of ₹ 143/- paid to M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. He however, up held the Order-in-Original and modified the same to the extent of sanctioning the refund of ₹ 143/-. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. Sl. No. Shipping Bill No. & Date Discrepancies (in terms of Notification 41/2012-ST dt. 29.06.2012 Amount involved (Rs.) Remarks 1. 4181994 Dt.31.07.14 The difference between the amount of claim (as per Para 3) for refund against the shipping bill and the amount of rebate avai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.12.14 The service provided by the input service providers M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. does not fall under specified services as per the Notification No.41/2012-ST(supra) since the service has not been used beyond the place of removal 645 Inadmissible for refund 7. 6863903 & 6914649 dt.26.12.14 & 29.12.14 The service provided by the input service providers M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. does not fall under specified services as per the Notification No.41/2012-ST(supra) since the service has not been used beyond the place of removal 2406 Inadmissible for refund Total 109707 Inadmissible and liable for rejection 3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that since the Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 is a beneficial legislation, the intent to promote exports by granting exemption of the service tax paid on various services utilized by the exporter during the course of exports of the goods and has to be construed li
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
below: 3. The main contention of the ld. A.R. for the Revenue, is that the respondent had not complied with the conditions of the Notification properly. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. The main contention of the Revenue is that the particulars furnished in each and every column, must be shipping bill wise. The ld. Counsel for the respondent placed synopsis of cases specifying the issues involved in each appeal. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given a detailed finding as under: 6. The Department also observes that claim cannot be filed under Para 3 in the difference between the amount of rebate under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 is less than twenty per cent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 in terms of Para 1 (c) of the Notification and accordingly. Accordingly, the refund of service tax of ₹ 1,64,163/- in respect of a few shipping bills under Para 3 is erroneous for the reason
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rt of the same is reproduced below for the sake of better understanding and clarity in the manner : (3) the rebate shall be claimed in the following manner, namely :- (a) rebate may be claimed on the service tax actually paid on any specified service on the basis of duly certified documents; (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; (c) the manufacturer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate of service tax paid on the taxable service used for export of goods to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture in Form A-1; (d) the exporter who is not so registered under the provisions referred to in clause
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the said goods. Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause the date of export shall be the date on which the proper officer of Customs makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the said goods for exportation under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); (h) where the total amount of rebate sought under a claim is upto 0.50% of the total FOB value of export goods and the exporter is registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textiles, Form A-1 shall be submitted along with relevant invoice, bill or challan, or any other document for each specified service, in original, issued in the name of the exporter, evidencing payment for the specified service used for export of the said goods and the service tax paid thereon, certified in the manner specified in sub-clauses (A) and (B) : (A) if the e
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
accounts of the exporter for the purposes of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), as the case may be; (j) where the rebate involved in a claim is less than rupees five hundred, the same shall not be allowed; (k) the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after satisfying himself,- (i) that the service tax rebate claim filed in Form A-1 is complete in every respect; (ii) that duly certified documents have been submitted evidencing the payment of service tax on the specified services ; (iii) that rebate has not been already received on the shipping bills or bills of export on the basis of procedure prescribed in paragraph 2; and (iv) that the rebate claimed is arithmetically accurate, refund the service tax paid on the specified service within a period of one month from the receipt of said claim : Provided that where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deput
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
twenty per cent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 . I find that in terms of Para 3, a claim may contain one shipping bill or it may contain more than 1 shipping bill. No restriction has been imposed as to the number of shipping bills to be covered in a claim. The only requirement is that details of shipping bill vis-à-vis details of goods exported and details of specified services used for export of goods have to be furnished. I find that in the Form A-1, details of shipping bill/bill of export, details of goods exported, details of specified services used for export of goods, documents evidencing payment of service tax and total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate have to be furnished. Again, under column total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate as a percentage of FOB value in shipping bill has to be shown. Therefore, from the Form A-1 and its table it is clear that claim is not shipping bill wise but only details h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =