2025 (3) TMI 1344 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax refund denied for GTA services used in exports under Notification 41/2012-ST

Amrut Cold Storage Pvt Limited, Silver Sea Food, Silver Star Exports Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar

CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal regarding refund of service tax paid on GTA services used for export of goods under Notification 41/2012-ST dated ... Eligibility of refund of service tax paid on a specified services i.e. GTA, used for export of goods under N/N. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012 - refund is denied in the light of the provisions of para 3(b) of the N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.04.2017 is based on the correct appreciation of the Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 and it is also based on the law laid down by the CESTAT-Delhi in M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. In M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd it has been observed by the CESTAT- Delhi that it agrees with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has observed in the impugned order that condition 2(a) of the said Notification No.17/2009-ST stipulates that the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of the said Act on the specified service provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As respondents were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under Section 68 (2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall not be eligible to claim exemption for specified services in view of the condition 2(a) of the said Notification. Thus, there is strength in the contention of the department that the said amount of refund claim is not as per proviso (c) to para 1 and condition 2 (a) of the N/N.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. Conclusion - The appellants are not entitled to a rebate of service tax under Notification No.41/2012-ST. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issue considered in this judgment is the eligibility for a refund of service tax paid on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for the export of goods under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. Specifically, the question is whether the appellants, as persons liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, are entitled to claim a rebate under the said notification.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISLegal Framework and Precedents:The relevant legal framework includes Notification No.41/2012-ST, which outlines the conditions under which a rebate of service tax can be claimed for services used in the export of goods. Clause 3(b) of this notification explicitly states that the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim a rebate. Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, specifies that certain categories of service receivers, by virtue of being liable to pay service tax, are considered 'persons liable to pay' and are thus impacted by the notification's provisions.The case of M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh, is cited as a precedent. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the decision that service tax paid on freight for transportation of goods from the factory to the port of export was not eligible for refund under Section 68(2), as per Notification No.17/2009-ST.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal interpreted Clause 3(b) of Notification No.41/2012-ST as clearly excluding persons liable to pay service tax under Section 68 from claiming a rebate. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent, as reflected in the notification, was to bar such persons from rebate eligibility. The use of the term 'notwithstanding' in Section 68(2) reinforces the exclusion of certain service receivers from rebate claims, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent double benefits.Key Evidence and Findings:The Tribunal relied on the plain language of Notification No.41/2012-ST and the precedent set by the M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd case. The Tribunal found that the appellants, being liable to pay service tax as recipients of the service under Section 68, fall within the exclusionary scope of Clause 3(b) of the notification.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the provisions of Notification No.41/2012-ST and Section 68 to the facts, determining that the appellants, as persons liable to pay service tax on the GTA services used for export, are not eligible for a rebate. This application was consistent with the precedent and the legislative framework.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The appellants argued that the notification does not explicitly exclude exporters who have paid service tax as recipients from claiming a refund. They contended that the legislative intent was to allow refunds to exporters to adhere to the principle that taxes should not be exported. The Tribunal, however, found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing the clear language of Clause 3(b) and the precedent supporting the Department's position.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the appellants are not eligible for a rebate under Notification No.41/2012-ST, as they are persons liable to pay service tax under Section 68. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner, affirming the denial of the refund claims.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's significant holding is the affirmation of the exclusionary provision in Clause 3(b) of Notification No.41/2012-ST, which precludes persons liable to pay service tax under Section 68 from claiming a rebate. This holding reinforces the legislative intent to prevent double benefits and ensures adherence to the statutory framework.Core Principles Established:The judgment establishes the principle that clear legislative language, as reflected in notifications and statutory provisions, must be adhered to, even if it appears to conflict with broader taxation principles such as the non-exportation of taxes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legislative intent and precedent in interpreting and applying the law.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal determined that the appellants are not entitled to a rebate of service tax under Notification No.41/2012-ST. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the lower authorities were upheld, affirming the denial of the refund claims.