2025 (3) TMI 1344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 15.03.2016 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Junagadh. Since all three appeals are directed against the common order dated 25.04.2017, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, all these three appeals are being disposed off by this common order. 1.1 The facts of the case in brief are that show cause notices were issued to the appellants for the erroneous refund sanctioned to them for service tax paid on GTA service which were used for the purpose of export of goods under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The Adjudicating Authority decided the show cause notices vide orders dated 15.03.2016, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in Section 66 and all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person as if, he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service." 2.2 The Argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in the Notification no.41/2012, nowhere it is mentioned that if the exporter has paid as recipient of service, then he is not eligible for refund. It is quite clear that if service tax is paid for service which is utilized for export then exporter should not be denied the refund. 2.3 The learned Counsel for the appellant attracted my attention towards refund Notification Nos.41/2007, 17/2009 and 52/2011 and argued that from the perusal of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned in the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 that the issue involved is eligibility of refund of service tax paid on a specified services i.e. GTA, used for export of goods under Notification No.41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. The refund is denied in the light of the provisions of para 3(b) of the Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. 4.1 The relevant para 3(b) of the Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 reads as under:- "3(b) the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification." 4.2 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that from the plain r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 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. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. 4.5 In M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd (supra) 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 ser....