TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le services which were used for export of rice and broken rice, which was the condition for granting refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST and 41/2009-ST. Revenue’s present appeal reiterates the self same grounds as had found disfavor with the primary and the lower appellate authority. - Decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.51344 of 2014 - Final Order No. 51436/2015 - Dated:- 7-4-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President, J. For the Petitioner : Ms. Suchitra Sharma, A.R. For the Respondent : None Per Justice G. Raghuram: This appeal is preferred by Revenue on the singular ground that the respondent/assessee s claim, for refund of service tax remitted to the extent of ₹ 19,62,030/-, is not in strict technica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The appellate Commissioner, for rejecting Revenue s appeal recorded the following detailed reasons in para 8 of the impugned order: 8. I find that department had filed the instant appeal for rejection of refund claim of ₹ 19,62,030/- on the ground that Bills issued by service provider i.e. M/s Ramgopal Shipping Services Kakinada do not contain service tax registration number and nature of taxable service rendered by them. The respondent in their defence has contended that M/s Ramgopal Shipping Services Kakinada are mentioning the Registration No. by affixing stamp on the bills. However, due to some clerical mistake they could not affix such stamp on some bills issued by them in their favour. They have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial benefit to the respondent is not sustainable in law especially when the Revenue has not disputed the nature of specified service rendered to the respondent, service tax payment and utilisation of such service for export of rice and proof of export thereof. Further the department is still at liberty to verify the above facts from the jurisdictional service tax authority of service provider. 3. From the aforesaid it is clear that the appellate Commissioner was satisfied that all conditions for claiming refund of service tax were fulfilled, except that on account of a clerical error, the assessee/claimant failed to affix stamp on some of the bills. Revenue in the present appeal does not dispute the findings of fact recorded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
