Appellant entitled to refund for inland haulage charges under Notification No. 41/2012-ST.

The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to a refund of inland haulage Charges for exporting goods beyond the place of removal, as services used for export were eligible for refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. Citing previous judgments and considering ownership of goods until reaching foreign buyers, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The impugned orders were deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of inland haulage Charges used beyond the place of removal for export of goods under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the inland haulage Charges, even if used beyond the place of removal, are eligible for refund under Notification No.41/2012-ST. They cited judgments in support of their argument.

2. The Revenue argued that the place of removal is the port of export and since the inland haulage Charges were used beyond this point, they are not covered under the specified service for refund.

3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. and considered previous judgments. It was noted that the appellant exported excisable goods and used services for export beyond the place of removal, which was the factory gate. The Tribunal found that services received by the appellant for delivering goods to clients' doorsteps were eligible for refund under the notification.

4. Referring to a Delhi Bench judgment in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to claim a refund of service tax on services used for export. The judgment emphasized that ownership of the goods remained with the appellant until they reached foreign buyers.

5. Considering the above precedents and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable. The appellant was deemed entitled to the refund of inland haulage Charges for the export of goods.

6. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the application of precedents to determine the entitlement of the appellant to the refund of inland haulage Charges for the export of goods.

---