Tribunal denies refund claim for service tax on ATF supplied to foreign aircraft.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim for a refund of service tax paid to Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. for supplying ATF to foreign going aircraft, as the services provided did not fall under the specified categories for refund. The Tribunal held that the amendment in Notification 37/2010 could not be retroactively applied to the earlier notification, and therefore, the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the refund claim.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of service tax paid for services rendered by Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. (MIAPL) to the appellant for supplying ATF to foreign going aircraft from Aviation Servicing facility.

Analysis:
The issue in this case pertains to the refund of service tax paid by the appellant to MIAPL for services rendered while supplying ATF for foreign going aircraft. The appellant claimed the refund on the grounds that the ATF fueled in aircraft undertaking foreign voyages constitutes export of goods. However, both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim.

The appellant's counsel argued that Notification 37/2010, amending Notification 17/2009, extended the refund of service tax to services provided by the airport authority to any other persons. Citing precedents like Devarsons Industries P. Ltd. and Fomento (Karnataka) Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd., the counsel contended that in cases of export, no taxes should be paid, and refunds should be granted.

The Deputy Commissioner reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the service tax paid on services rendered by MIAPL for fueling aircraft on foreign trips during December 2009 to May 2010.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the services provided by MIAPL did not fall under the categories specified in Notification 17/2009 for refund of service tax. The service tax paid by MIAPL was under a different category (Section 65(105)(zzm)), not covered by the notification. The Tribunal held that the amendment in Notification 37/2010 could not be retroactively applied to the earlier notification. Consequently, the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the appellant's refund claim.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

---