9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agadh. No. Refund/168 & 169/A.C. JND/2015-16 both dated 27.11.2015. 1.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claims along with relevant documents for service tax paid on GTA services which were used for the purpose of export of excisable goods under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The refund claims were rejected vide orders dated 27.11.2015 passed by Assistant Commissioner Central Excise-Junagadh. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Original dated 27.11.2015, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise-Junagadh and rejected the appeals. Feeling aggrieved from the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax is paid for service utilized for export of goods, then exporter should not be denied the refund. 2.3 The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that in refund Notification No. 41/2007 it has also been provided that the person liable to pay service tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the said Finance Act, shall pay service tax as applicable on the specified services, provided that where the exporter of the said goods and the person liable to pay service tax under sub-section (2) of Section 68, for the said services are the same person, then in such cases, exemption for the specified service shall be claimed by the person. 2.4 The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that Notification No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition that the exporter should not have claimed exemption vide Notification No. 18/2009. It clearly indicates that if the exporter has not claimed the exemption then refund should be granted. Notification No. 52/2011 has also continued the same criteria. 2.6 The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that in Notification No. 17/2009 in para 1 (c) it has been provided that the exporter claiming the exemption has actually paid the service tax on the specified service to its provider. Therefore, service tax paid to the service provider will be allowed as refund. 2.8 The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that Notification No. 52/2011 has provided that the exemption shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranted in the impugned order dated 27.09.2016. He has prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative for the department and perused the record. 4.1 I have gone through the order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). At page 5 of the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it has been mentioned that the appellant had filed refund claims for refund of service tax paid on specified service viz. GTA used for export of goods. The sanctioning authority vide orders dated 22.11.2015 rejected the claim of the appellant for the entire amount in view of the para 3 (b) of Notification No. 41/2012 -ST dated 29.06.2012 Para 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of services provided to an exporter for transport of goods by Goods Transport Agency (GTA). So the exemption from payment of service tax on GTA services for export is well covered by this notification. It shows the intention of the legislature that instead of granting rebate in case of service provided by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA), where the service recipient is liable for payment of service tax, an absolute exemption from payment of service tax is granted separately. 4.4 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also observed in the impugned order that the appellant relied upon the decision in East India Mineral Ltd passed by CESTAT, Kolkata Bench but, it is not relevant in the facts of the present case as the issue was relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l observed as follows:- "Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly examined the issues in depth. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is self explanatory in which he has observed that condition 2(a) of the said Notification No. 17/2009-ST stipulates that the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of the said Act on the specified service provided to the exporter and used for exports of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As the respondents were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under Section 68(2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall not be eligible to claim exemption for specified services in view of condition 2(a) of the said notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
