TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant had availed drawback in respect of goods exported under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Drawback Rules ) and that certain charges paid by the appellant in respect of services received were not covered under the scope of specified services under the notification. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant pleaded/contended as under : (i) The appeal is confined only to the extent the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the exports were made under claim of Drawback and that the following charges paid by the appellant in respect of services received were not covered under the scope of specified services under the said notification. S. No. Description Amount of refund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclosed at page No. 96-99 of the appeal memo. The service provider (CHA) has not charged and the appellant has not claimed any refund of service tax on other charges. In any case, the said charges form integral part of CHA services rendered and even in case if CHA had charges service tax thereon, the refund thereof would be admissible to the appellant. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Commissioner Vs. Spentex Industries Ltd. 2014 (35) STR 562 (Tri.-Mum). (v) As regards the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the exports were made under claim of drawback and thereby violated Condition No. 1(e) of the Notification No. 41/2007-ST; the Drawback Rules provide for drawback in the form of rebate of tax pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T-DEL. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. As regards the terminal handling charges, we find that refund of service tax in relation thereto has been allowed by judgements of CESTAT in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra). Similarly, the issue of refund in respect of service tax paid in respect of transportation of empty containers from port to the factory has been analysed and such refund allowed by CESTAT in the case of Vippy Industries (supra). We find that with regard to CHA charges the appellant has clearly mentioned that the CHA has not charged and the appellant has not claimed any refund of service tax on other charges and CHA service was covered as specified services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST and such refund have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 3(2)(ea): In determining the amount or rate of drawback under this Rule, the Central Govt. shall have regard to the average amount of tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services for the manufacturing or processing or for containing or packing the export goods. It is evident from the above quoted Rule that it merely makes it mandatory for the Central Government to have regard to the average amount of tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services for the manufacturing or processing or for containing or packing the export goods. It by no means implies that Central Government is forbidden to have regard to other input services like the ones involved in these appeals while fixing the all industry rates of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Drawback Rules does in no way alter the legal position analysed in the above reproduced para; indeed CBEC circular cannot change the legal position. The reference to Section 93A and 94 of the Finance Act in no way adversely impinges upon the analysis contained in para 2 (reproduced above) of CESTAT judgement in the case of Bharat Art and Crafts (supra). Section 93A deals with grant of rebate of service tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services for the manufacturing or processing of such goods or for providing any taxable services while in the present case the issue is interpretation of an exemption notification (No. 41/2007-ST) which is operationalised by way of refund. The said notification does not have any relat....