2026-VIL-252-CESTAT-CHE-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-252-CESTAT-CHE-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Retrospective application of amended definition of "specified services" in Notification No. 41/2012-ST - Whether the term "specified services" in Notification No. 41/2012-ST, as amended by Notification No. 1/2016-ST, includes input services used at the head office/corporate office for the export of goods, and therefore whether services used at the head office qualify for refund - HELD - The definition of "specified services" in Notification No. 41/2012-ST was retrospectively widened by Notification No. 1/2016-ST to include services used "beyond the factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture" for the export of goods. This amendment is expressly given retrospective effect from 01.07.2012 and is, therefore, clarificatory and applicable to the period of dispute. The rejection based on the old phrase "beyond the place of removal" is legally untenable. The test is simply whether the service is used beyond the place of manufacture and for export, irrespective of whether it is pre-export or post-export. The services used at the head office, such as renting of premises, telecommunication, security, professional/IT consultancy, C&F support, repair & maintenance etc., are integral to the export process and qualify as "specified services" – The matter is remanded for limited verification of invoice authenticity, nexus with export of goods, and filing within one year of the relevant exports - The impugned orders are set aside to the extent they rejected the refunds based on the pre-2016 interpretation of Notification No. 41/2012-ST or on quarter mismatch/time-bar grounds – The appeal is allowed by remand - Whether the lower authorities were justified in rejecting portions of the claim on the ground of time-bar (i.e., filed after one year from the date of export) or because certain invoice amounts belonged to quarters other than the quarter for which refund was sought - HELD - The Notification No. 41/2012-ST imposes only one condition, i.e., the claim must be filed within one year from the date of export, and there is no quarter-wise restriction (unlike Notification 27/2012-CE). Therefore, an invoice pertaining to another quarter cannot be rejected if the claim is filed within one year of export and the nexus is shown. The lower authorities erred by importing the procedural framework of Notification No. 27/2012-CE and the absence of specific invoice/shipping bill-wise reasons in the impugned order strengthens the appellant's case. Accordingly, the findings on time-bar and quarter-wise mismatch are unsustainable - The impugned orders are set aside to the extent they rejected the refunds on the basis of time-bar or quarter mismatch, and remanded the matter to the lower authorities for limited verification and fresh orders.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Jan '26 Burning issues:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?