Export Service Exemption: Remand for Tax Refund Determination

The Tribunal held that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply due to the exemption for export of service. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for determining the quantum of service tax refund to be sanctioned. The appellant was instructed to provide all necessary details and cooperate for the verification process. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Claim of refund for service tax paid on international roaming services.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid on services provided to a foreign network operator for international roaming facility. The Commissioner rejected the claim due to lack of documents showing the amount charged and the absence of proof that no service tax was charged. The adjudicating authority also highlighted the failure to provide details of service tax payment on services provided to international inbound roamers and to identify the amount in the invoices. The appellant argued that the burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment was on them, but the rejection was based on the lack of specific details rather than unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal referred to a similar case where the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable to export transactions. Despite this, the lower authorities concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate the correlation between the service tax paid and the invoices raised on the foreign mobile operator for inbound international roaming charges. The appellant claimed to have provided information and a chartered accountant's certificate confirming the payment of service tax, not reflected in the invoices or passed on to customers. The lack of communication hindered the verification of the certificate's authenticity from the appellant's records. The Tribunal noted that the rejection based on unjust enrichment was not entirely accurate, as the documents did not explicitly address the issue of passing on the service tax burden.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply due to the exemption for export of service. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for determining the quantum of service tax refund to be sanctioned. The appellant was instructed to provide all necessary details and cooperate for the verification process. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings.

---