9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Service Tax, I Division, Bangalore. 2. The Appellants M/s. Praveen Chandra, Mine owner and exporter registered under Service Tax are engaged in the exporting of iron ore, calibrated iron ore and lump. They have preferred two refund claims for Rs. 16,01,118/- and Rs. 29,80,894/- for the period April to June' 2008 and July to Sept' 08 respectively. They were issued with Show Cause Notice and the claims were rejected for the reason that the input services on transportation of goods has not been supported by lorry receipts relating to export of goods not having details of export invoices and corresponding shipping bill details; that railway rake charges are not covered under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the export. Hence, the Appellants have filed the present two appeals. 4. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellant contended inter alia that the rejection order has been passed based on assumptions and presumptions, conjectures and surmises involving unwarranted inferences and the order is vitiated by serious legal error and cited Hon. SC decision in the matter of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J172 (S.C.); that the order is passed without valid and cogent reasons and it has traversed beyond the parameters of the Show Cause Notice and cited case laws; that their refund claims was complete in all respects; that co relation of lorry receipts with export invoices and shipping bills is not possible as the lor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea that Service Tax registration was not there in the invoices is not proper as Board's circular No. 112/06/09 dated 12-3-09(Para 7) clearly allows it. Hence, their claim for refund should be allowed. 5.(b) In respect of second appeal A.No. 338/09-S.T., the Advocate argued that refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for the specified services for the merchant exporter Appellant has been rejected on GTA for not linking lorry receipts with export invoices, non filing of lorry receipts with the Department., tech. testing and certificate service, supervision charges, machine hire charges, wharfage charges (due to no invoice, though challan was there) and no nexus of input services with export. He argued that all these are specified in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Para 7) clearly allows it. Hence, their claim for refund should be allowed. In respect of Appeal No. 338/09-S.T. the Appellant's contention is that the input services like transport charges, machine hire charges, wharfage charges, technical inspection charges etc. there are minor technical lapses, but substantial aspect of export is established, the Department's contention that lorry receipts do not reflect the export invoice No. and the shipping bill No. is not tenable as movement of ore through lorries from mines takes place 20 to 30 days before the export and they have produced conclusive proof of tonnage from the Master/Captain of the vessel through bill of lading. I fully agree with their contention. It is a fact that for 30,000 tons o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
