9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29/06/2012 as amended. On adjudication, the refund claim on GTA Services was denied to the appellant as per Clause 3(b) of the Notification 41/2012, observing that since the appellant are liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, for receiving the GTA Services, hence not eligible to refund. Aggrieved by the said order they filed appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that there is no dispute of the fact that the GTA Service had been availed by the appellant and utilized in the export of the goods. He has submitted that there was erroneous interpretation of Clause 3(b) of the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the taxable services provided to the exported for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification. Further, Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 also provides that the person receiving GTA service is liable to pay 100% Service Tax payable on the said service w.e.f. 01.07.2012. From the above, it appears that from 01.07.2012 and onwards, by virtue of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, receiving GTA service and making payment of freight is liable to pay Tax. Thus, Clause 3(b) of Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 as amended debars the exporter claiming rebate of Service Tax on such services." From the aforesaid allegation it is clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefore. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived there from by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby." If the view taken by the authorities below were to be upheld, the person such as the appellant, who has exported the goods and used certain services for the same, and for whose benefit the Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. has been issued in the first place, will not get the benefit. A literal interpretation of Clause 3(b) would deny such refunds, in all those cases where the exporter has paid service tax on reverse charge basis. Such an interpretatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
