Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1253 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRebate/Refund of service tax - N/N. 41/2012 dated 29.06.2012 - Amendment in notification - effect of amendment - Service Tax deposited on input service procured for exporting their manufactured yarn during the period July, 2012 to September, 2012 - Held that:- It is observed that the adjudicating authority has rejected the application based on two reasons; one, that the rebate claim is not maintainable under Notification No.32/2011 continued upto 30th June, 2012 as the same being superseded by another Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. Secondly, that even Notification No.41 permits rebate only on such services as were procured beyond the place of removal, which is the port of export in the present case. Since the services procured herein were prior to reaching port of export the Authority has rejected the claim. In view of the Notifications as have been brought to my notice as on day and have simultaneously being conceded by the Department, it is held that all these Notifications were not available to the adjudicating authorities below - The perusal of all the said amended notification makes it clear that the exporters were made entitled for rebate for procuring services by shifting their manufactured product from the factory for being exported to the port. The services herein admittedly are the services for the said purpose. The appellant becomes entitled to claim the rebate thereof, retrospective effect being given to the said amendment. Relying upon the case of 20 Microns Limited vs. CCE & ST, Vadodara [2016 (9) TMI 95 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] that in view of retrospective amendment in the impugned Notification, refund in respect of the services beyond factory to the port is permissible - the appellant entitled to the benefit of rebate. Though in the circumstances available before the adjudicating authorities, the order had no infirmity but in view of the subsequent amendments, which have been given the retrospective effect entitling the appellant for the rebate, the order in hand is hereby set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|