CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not the exporter entitled to refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the shipping bills and contractual documents showed title passed to the trading intermediary, who alone exported the consignments and realised export proceeds; the appellant merely supplied goods and was not the exporter for service-tax rebate purposes. Consequently refunds of service tax paid by the appellant were not allowable under the export-linked notification, and recovery proceedings against previously sanctioned refunds were sustainable. The appellant's invocation of merchant/third-party exporter concepts and EXIM benefits did not confer entitlement to refunds restricted to the actual exporter.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not the exporter entitled to refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the shipping bills and contractual documents showed title passed to the trading intermediary, who alone exported the consignments and realised export proceeds; the appellant merely supplied goods and was not the exporter for service-tax rebate purposes. Consequently refunds of service tax paid by the appellant were not allowable under the export-linked notification, and recovery proceedings against previously sanctioned refunds were sustainable. The appellant's invocation of merchant/third-party exporter concepts and EXIM benefits did not confer entitlement to refunds restricted to the actual exporter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
