Order date – 06 September 2022

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s. The Tinplate Company of India Ltd, had submitted their respective refund claims for refund of Service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods under certain Bills of Entry as per Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June 2012.
• The Adjudicating Authorities found the refund claims preferred by the Appellants to be in order and that the conditions/requirements under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June 2012 had been fulfilled by the Appellants. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authorities sanctioned the refund amounts.
• But was later modified in appeal in favour of the Revenue and held that that the refund claims did not fulfil the conditions under clause 1(c) of the Notification inasmuch as that individual shipping bills have to be considered while arriving at the amount of rebate to be sanctioned for deciding the eligibility criteria of the shipping bills for claiming rebate under and the refund claim which was less than Rs. 500/- could not be allowed as per Paragraph 3(j) of the Notification. 
• Also, the pre-inspection of excisable goods had been undertaken inside the manufacturer’s plant and such service had not been provided beyond the ‘Place of Removal’ and was therefore, in violation of Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28th February 2015.
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant is liable for refund claim?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that from a bare reading of the Notification No. 41/2012-ST, it is clear that rebate may be claimed on the Service tax actually paid on any specified service used for export of goods as per the procedure specified under Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Notification. 
• Further, on perusal of Para 1(c), a claim may contain one shipping bill or more than one shipping bill, however, no restriction has been imposed on the number of shipping bills to be covered in each claim. The only requirement is that the details of shipping bills vis-a-vis the details of goods exported and details of specified services used for such export have to be furnished. 
• Further, it was observed that in Form A-1, the claim is not shipping bill wise only that the details have to be furnished separately for each shipping bill. 
• Also, in Para 3 of the Notification it does not impose any condition which requires the claims to be filed shipping bill wise. Further, the total amount of Service tax paid which is claimed as rebate has to be shown in figure and as a percentage of total FOB value in shipping bill. This goes on to show that it is not shipping bill specific when more than one shipping bills are involved in a claim. Therefore, there is no requirement to determine FOB value shipping bill wise to determine the formula under Para 1(c) or Para 3 of the Notification.
• It was also held that on perusal of Notification No. 41/2012 as amended by Notification No. 01/2016-ST dated 3rd February 2016, specified services means taxable services that have been used beyond the factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the said goods and refund of service tax paid on such specified services are eligible. 
• Appeal allowed.