Page 186 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

104 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
clearance of goods to the place of export or any other function that can only be
done after clearance of goods from the factory and that the Chartered Accountant
service was used before the execution of export the benefit cannot be granted to
him. Appeal is, accordingly, prayed to be dismissed.
8. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the record and the or-
der-under-challenge, I am of the opinion that to adjudicate upon the impugned
controversy as to whether the Chartered Accountant services are the specified
service in Notification No. 41/2012, dated 29-6-2012 foremost I need to look into
the said notification and also the amendment thereof on 3rd February, 2016 by
Notification No. 1/2016. It is observed that the notification grants rebate of ser-
vice tax paid on the taxable services which are received by an exporter of goods
and used for the export of goods to such extent and in such manner as men-
tioned in the notification. The notification further goes on to say that the rebate
shall be granted by way of service tax paid on the specified services. The speci-
fied services are defined to mean -
In case of excisable goods taxable services that have been used at the
place of removal, for the export of said goods. It is this definition which
stands amended vide Notification 1/2016 in the following word :
Specified services means that :
In the case of excisable goods, taxable services that have been used
beyond factory or any other place or premises of production or
manufacture of the said goods for their export.
9. The bare perusal of the notification and the amendment thereof
makes it clear that any service which is being received by an exporter of goods
and are used for the export of goods and the service tax thereof has been paid the
refund thereof can be claimed provided that the services are rendered at a place
which is neither factory nor any other place or premises of production or manu-
facture. This perusal makes it, abundantly, clear that the question of the service
being rendered pre or post export has no significance.
10. In the present case, the appellant is the exporter of excisable goods
and is claiming refund of service tax paid on the specified services as clarifies in
the CA’s certificate as mentioned above, and that the services have been used,
admittedly, in and in relation to export. None of the said services appears to have
been used for the purpose of production of soap stone. Department has not pro-
duced evidence to the contrary. Hence, all are the services which are to be used
beyond the factory or premises of production or manufacture.
I am of the opinion that the same is the sufficient compliance of the im-
pugned notification.
11. In view of the entire above observations, I am not convinced with
the findings of the adjudicating authority below who have created a concept of
pre and post export/clearance services. Whereas the specified services in the im-
pugned notification, to my opinion, are the services irrespective of pre or post
export/clearance but those which are beyond place of production or manufac-
ture.
12. The order accordingly is held to be a result of wrong interpretation
of the relevant notification, accordingly, is hereby set aside. As a result thereof
three of the impugned appeals stand allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  186