9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal Bench, New Delhi dated 26.3.2013, by which it has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal for refund of Rs.85,291/-. 3. The respondent filed a refund claim on 6.3.2012 in terms of Notification dated 7.7.2009 for Rs.4,76,290/- in respect of the service tax paid on the input services, which were used in the export of goods, exported by them during the period 08.2011 to 10.2011. After processing the refund claim the Original Authority sanctioned the refund of service tax of Rs.4,76,290/- against the service tax paid by the respondent for the services used in the export of goods. Aggrieved the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed to the extent that the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss-objections that there have been clerical mistakes in not putting the relevant cenvatable invoices with Shipping Bills mentioned in the statement enclosed with the refund claim. There is no condition in the Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, that the goods exported should bear a co-relation with the services used as provided by the service providers in respect of the specified services. I find no merit in the submissions of the respondent to the extent that all these were clerical errors. The grounds taken by the appellant department are not based on clerical or typographical errors, but are based on the facts available on record which can not be brushed aside. Facts can not be changed merely by saying that documents could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as the finding, that the refund claimed pertains to a later period, whereas the Shipping bill enclosed with the refund claimed was dated 22.2.2011, is a finding of fact. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the CESTAT have recorded categorical findings that as claimed by the appellant there was no clerical error. The facts available on record clearly established that the claim was not for the period for which the refund was claimed. The goods exported vide the said Shipping bills, were not stored/warehoused during the period of 16.9.2011 to 15.10.2011, and were in fact exported well before that period is a finding of fact, which does not raise any question of law to be considered by the Court. 6. The Central Excise Appeal is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
