Goods sold at Mumbai Airport outlets deemed exports under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. Revenue's appeals dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the goods sold by the respondent at their outlets in the Security Hold Area of Mumbai International Airport are considered exports, making the respondent eligible for a rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Service Tax rebate on rent paid for outlets at Mumbai International Airport.
2. Classification of sales at airport outlets as "exports."
3. Nexus between input service of renting space and claimed export goods.
4. Applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment.
5. Adherence to previous Tribunal decisions and judicial discipline.
6. Applicability of the litigation policy dated 22.08.2019.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Service Tax rebate on rent paid for outlets at Mumbai International Airport:
The primary issue is whether the Service Tax borne by the respondent-assessee on the rent paid to Mumbai International Airport Ltd. (MIAL) for its two outlets at the departure terminal is eligible for rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST, dated 29.6.2012. The respondent operates shops at the departure terminal, selling duty/tax paid goods to outgoing international passengers. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund claims, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's challenge.

2. Classification of sales at airport outlets as "exports":
The respondent-assessee argued that sales at their outlets in the Security Hold Area (SHA) should be considered as "exports" since the goods sold there are taken out of India by international passengers. The Tribunal referenced the Allahabad High Court's decision in Atin Krishna vs. UOI, which held that goods sold at Duty Free Shops (DFS) to international passengers are exported goods. The Tribunal concluded that sales at the respondent's outlets in SHA are exports under the Customs Act, 1962, and the respondent is an exporter.

3. Nexus between input service of renting space and claimed export goods:
The Tribunal found that the input service of renting space at the airport has a direct nexus with the sale of goods claimed as exports. The goods sold at these outlets are bound to be taken out of India, thereby supporting the respondent's claim for rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST.

4. Applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument on unjust enrichment, citing that in export transactions, as per clause (a) of proviso to Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The goods sold at the respondent's outlets are exported, and no service tax or excise duty is charged or recovered in the export invoice.

5. Adherence to previous Tribunal decisions and judicial discipline:
The Tribunal noted that in previous cases involving the same parties and identical issues, it had ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, affirming their eligibility for rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and consistency in following its earlier decisions, which were not contested by the Revenue.

6. Applicability of the litigation policy dated 22.08.2019:
The Tribunal highlighted the Ministry of Finance's litigation policy dated 22.08.2019, which sets a threshold financial limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Since the amounts involved in the present appeals were below this threshold, the appeals were technically not maintainable. However, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeals on merits to avoid any debate on the applicability of the policy to pending cases.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods sold by the respondent-assessee at its outlets in the SHA at the departure terminal of Mumbai International Airport are exports, and the respondent is an exporter eligible for rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as devoid of merit.

---