AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 to September 2009) and filed on 23/9/2010(for the period October 2009 to March 2010) of Service tax paid on "Througput Charges" by Mumbai International Airports Authority, under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7/7/2009 is admissible under Sr. No. 18 under "Airport Services", which services were used for supply of ATF to foreign aircrafts which is treated as 'export', in a case where on the date of filing the Refund Claims the said entry at Sr. No. 18 (Airport Service) of Notification No. 17/2009-ST was inserted vide Notification No. 37/2010-ST dated 28/6/2010. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund of Rs. 99,68,511/- vide Order-in-Original No. K-I/107-REF/2010-II dated 25/1/2011 and refund of Rs. 2,32,13,600/- vide Order-in-Orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at the time of export of the goods under Notification No. 17/2009-ST during the period July, 2009 to September, 2009. He submits that refund claims were filed on 27/7/2010 and 23/9/2010 at the same time the amended notification was in enforce. According to which the refund of service tax paid on Airport service was admissible. He referred to the Board Circular No. 354/256/2009-TRU dated 1/1/2010 which clarifies that Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7/7/2009 does not bar its applicability to exports that have taken place prior to its issuance. He further submits that notification allowing refund on service tax paid in respect of export was issued with sole objective of removing burden of service tax from the exports goods and the policy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has to pay service tax on specified service to the provider, although exports took place during the period July, 2009 for claiming refund, the aforesaid condition (c) of the proviso to para 1 of the Notification could be fulfilled by the appellants only after the receipt of the invoice of MIAL, which was raised by MIAL on 10/8/2009 and appellant could pay service tax to MIAL only after receipt of the invoice. Therefore the period of one year for filing refund was wrongly taken from the date of services received whereas it should be taken only from the date of payment of service tax by the appellant to MIAL therefore refund is not time bar. In this regard Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod. The Airport service was not covered under exemption notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7/7/2009. It is important to note that this Notification exempt the services specified in the notification by way of refund. Therefore the exemption is available in the hands of the recipient. However, service provider in the present case is MIAL suppose to discharge the service tax. Therefore point of time of exemption under notification No. 17/2009-ST is time when services were received and used in export of the goods. In the present case receipt of the service as well as use in the exports of goods have taken place during the July, 2009 to March, 2010, at that material time there was no exemption provided to Airport service under notification no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t fall under any of the two categories as the service tax discharged by MIAPL is under Section 65(105)(zzm). The service tax paid under the category of services provided by Airport authority under Section 65(105)(zzm) were inserted in Notification 17/2009-ST by Notification 37/2010-ST dated 28.06.2010. The arguments of the learned Counsel is that this notification should be read as being effective in the Notification 17/2009-ST from the date it was issued is not acceptable. Notification 17/2009-ST specifically grants refund of tax paid on services provided under the category as per classification as mentioned therein. The service tax paid by MIAPL is under the category which was not classified under Notification 17/2009-ST as it existed dur....