Appeal Partially Allowed: Refund for Gardening Services Granted, Fencing Services Claim Rejected

The appeal was partly allowed for the gardening services refund claim but rejected for the fencing services refund claim. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant for the gardening services refund due to the absence of a green belt maintenance requirement in the permission granted by the Pollution Control Board. However, the rejection for fencing services was upheld based on the lack of correlation with the appellant's exported services.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection of service tax paid for gardening services and fencing services.

Gardening Services Refund Claim:
The appellant, an exporter of services, claimed a refund of service tax paid for maintaining a garden in their research area to comply with Pollution Control Board requirements. The appellant also claimed a refund for service tax paid on erecting barbed wire fences for conducting trials on leased land. The Departmental Representative argued that maintaining a green belt was mandatory to comply with regulations and cited a Tribunal decision supporting the refund claim. The A.R. countered, citing Tribunal decisions on business expenses and lack of correlation for the fencing services. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant for the gardening services refund, noting the absence of a green belt maintenance requirement in the permission granted by the Pollution Control Board. The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim for gardening services but upheld the rejection for fencing services due to the lack of correlation with the appellant's exported services.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for the gardening services refund claim but rejected for the fencing services refund claim. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a green belt maintenance mandate in the permission granted and the inability to establish a correlation between the fencing services and the exported services.

---