Saurashtra Fuels Pvt Ltd  VERSUS C.S.T.-Service Tax –  Ahmedabad

Customs, Excise & Service Tax 

Appellate Tribunal West Zonal

Bench At Ahmedabad

 

REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO. 3

Service Tax Appeal No. 12326 of 2013-SM

(Arising out of OIA-74-2013-STC-SKS-COMMR-A-AHD dated 16/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax-SERVICE TAX – AHMEDABAD)

 

Saurashtra Fuels Pvt Ltd 

VERSUS

C.S.T.-Service Tax – Ahmedabad

 

APPEARANCE:

Shri Hasit Dave, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent

 

CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR

 

 

Final Order No. A/ 11208 /2023

 

 

 

 

RAMESH NAIR

DATE OF HEARING: 08.02.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 07.06.2023

 

 

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s refund claim in respect of services used for export of goods  was denied under Notification No 17/2009- ST dated 07.07.2009 for the period of export from September 2010 to January, 2011 on the ground that there are some discrepancy in the service bills in as much as the bills do not tally with the form A1 for export submitted by the appellant, the appellant failed to produce registration certificate from export council as required under para 2 (1) (B) of Notification No. 17/2009 – ST dated 07.07.2009. The Mundra port has issued bills to their Mumbai office for the services such as water front charges & weighbridge charge which do not qualify export service. The service of sampling for quality assurance and analysis done for loading of cargo does not qualify under testing & inspection service. The objection

 

about short shipment certificate to be issued by the custom department was not explained and reduced proportionately. The issue of unjust enrichment was also raised despite producing the Chartered Accountant Certificate. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the claim on the above grounds vide order-In-Original. The appellant being aggrieved by the said Order-In-original filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who convincing with the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal.

2. Shri Hasit Dave, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits thatit is the undisputed fact that export of goods or services , is not to be taxed in any manner and all input services used in final export of goods, which have suffered the tax incidence are to be refunded  The lower Authorities have committed gross error in rejecting the refund claim on mere technicalities even when it is undisputed fact that the input services were  used for  export of goods from Mundra Port.
   • As regard the dispute ofclassification of service he submits that once the invoice was issued by the Mundra Port under the head of port services , the service is indeed port service and same cannot be disputed at the recipient end. Similarly, the invoice for Testing and Inspection were issued by the inspection agency M/s. Griffith India Private Limited and M/S. SGS India Private Limited which is clearly for inspection of Cargo, Sampling, Supervision and Quality Analysis Certification, directly in relation to export of    Therefore, these services are clearly defined as “ Technical Inspection and Certification Services” .
   • Hesubmits that the lower authorities have wrongly held that their registered Mumbai Office of the appellant which is already having centralized service tax registration cannot be granted this refund, since invoices are issued in their name and also that certain invoices  do not

 

tally and that no documents and certificates were given by the appellant is entirely wrong. He submits that all documents and certificates like shortage explanation, disclaimer certificate, tabular chart of invoices and export against the same with shipping bill numbers were all already given with the refund application and also during personal hearing of the refund claim. Therefore, the rejection of refund is erroneous and illegal.

• He submits that the lower authorities have also rejected the claimon the ground of unjust enrichment which is absolutely incorrect. In the case of refund against export of goods provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable as held by this Tribunal in the case of CST Ahmedabad Vs. S. Mohanlal Services reported in 2010 (18) STR 173 (Tri. Ahmd).
• He submitsthat even in fact the incidence of service tax was not passed on to any other person for which they had submitted Chartered Accountant Certificate and produced their ledgers to this effect. He further submits that on the identical matter of the appellant’s own case the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed their appeal vide Order-In- Appeal dated 12.2011 therefore on the same fact rejection of refund claim in the present case is absolutely incorrect. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:-
  • VodafoneMobile Service – 2019 (29) GSTL 314 ( Del)
  • CC ST Mumbai II Vs. Pulcra Chemicals (I) Pvt Ltd – 2015 (39) STR 700 (Tri. Mum)
  • UOI Arihant Tiles & Marbles – 2019 (20) GSTL 21 (Raj.)

 

• KotakGinning  CCE & ST Mumbai – 2014 (14) GSTL 392(Tri. Mum)
• Adani Enterprises Ltd Vs. CCE &ST Ahmedabad – 2020 (40) GSTL 468 (Tri. Ahmedabad)
• CCEIndore  Anant Commodities Pvt Ltd – 2010 (18) STR 214 (Tri.

Del)

 

3. Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenuereiterates the finding of the impugned order.
4. Ihave carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on various counts as discussed in the above facts and the submission of the Learned Counsel. There is no dispute that the appellant have exported the goods and the services in question were used for export of such goods. I also find that the reason for rejecting the refund claim is all based on small technicalities, for technical lapse substantial benefit of refund of input services for export of goods cannot be denied.
   • As regard the classification of input servicesunder port service and test and inspection service, I find that even though the service was involved of different types such as water front charges & weighbridge charge but the said services were provided by the Mundra Port and invoices for this was issued by the Mundra port under the Port services falling under Section 165 (105) (zzi) of the Finance Act. Similarly, the invoices of M/s. Griffith India Private Limited and M/S. SGS India Private Limited are clearly in respect of Test and Inspection Service. Therefore, these services are clearly eligible for refund under Notification No. 17/2009- ST. The lower authorities have disputed the classification of services, I find that firstly, the services were correctly classified by the service provider. Secondly, even if there is an error in the classification of service at the service provider’s end, the same cannot be questioned or disputed at the service recipient end. For this reason also merely on classification dispute, the refund cannot be
   • The dispute raisedregarding shortage explanation, I find that the appellant have submitted all the documents and certificates such as shortage explanation, disclaimer certificate, tabular chart of invoices and export against the same with shipping bill numbers along with the refund

 

application. Therefore, on this count also refund cannot be disputed. The lower authorities have raised the issue on unjust enrichment, in this regard  I am of the clear view that on the basis of settled law  in the case of refund against export of goods, the provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable.

• Moreover, in the present case the appellant have submitted the chartered accountant certificateand have also shown the books of account wherein the refund amount is reflected as receivable. On this fact also unjust enrichment is not applicable.

5. In view of my above observation, the appellant is entitled for the refund. Accordingly, the impugned orderis set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief , if any, in accordance with law.

(Pronounced in the open court on 07.06.2023)

RAMESH NAIR MEMBER (JUDICIAL)