Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 343 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHRefund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - denial on the ground that the services are not specified services for refund as these services have not been received by the appellant at port for export of goods - Held that: - CBEC Circular 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, clarified that the service provided/received in the port area do qualify as port services - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on account of discrepancy in the transport of documents, the name of the ICD Code etc. are not mentioned in the transportation documents along with description of the goods - Held that: - this service has not been received by the appellant for transportation of goods at port for export with regard to the goods exported, therefore, the said defect is technical in nature - in terms of Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 procedural infractions in respect of export documents are required to be ignored while granting refund - refund cannot be denied. Refund claim - denial on the ground that invoice has been issued in the name of head office of the appellant for the input services - Held that: - this is a technical defect - there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant failed to provide the invoice issued by the M/s APL Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi who has provided the transport service - Held that: - these invoices have not been produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. In that circumstances, the matters needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority to examine the invoices - matter on remand. Appeal allowed - part matter allowed and part matter on remand.
|