2023 (1) TMI 601 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of Assessee as rightful exporter under Customs Act, orders refund.

M/s. Auroglobal Comtrade Versus The Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others

M/s. Auroglobal Comtrade Versus The Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others - 2023 (71) G.S.T.L. 355 (Ori.) Issues:Appeal against CESTAT's order allowing Excise Appeal No.471 of 2012, Refund claim of service tax for export of Iron Ore Fines, Interpretation of 'exporter' under Customs Act.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against CESTAT's order setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order in favor of the Assessee regarding the refund claims for service tax paid on the export of Iron Ore Fines. The questions framed for consideration included whether the Tribunal was justified in denying the rightful claim of refund based on technicality, ignoring precedent, and denying statutory rights for procedural lapses. 2. The background revealed that the Assessee filed refund claims for service tax paid on exports through Paradeep Port. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Assessee was the actual exporter despite the shipping bills being in the name of other entities. The Assessee bore all export-related expenses, entered agreements with foreign buyers, raised invoices, and received remittances, establishing its role as the real exporter.3. The CESTAT, however, held that entities named in shipping bills were the exporters based on Customs Act definitions. The Court analyzed the Act's definitions of 'entry,' 'export goods,' and 'exporter,' noting the inclusive nature of the term 'exporter' to include any person holding out to be the exporter, not necessarily the actual exporter.4. Considering the facts that the Assessee bore all export costs, entered agreements for exports, and managed export-related activities, the Court concluded that the Assessee qualified as the exporter under the Act. The Tribunal's view denying the Assessee's entitlement to refunds was disagreed with, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was restored in favor of the Assessee.5. Consequently, the Court answered the framed questions in favor of the Assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the Department to refund the claimed amounts within eight weeks. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing the Assessee's rightful claim as the exporter for the purpose of refund entitlement under the Customs Act.