TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/784, 786, 788/2009-ST(DB) - Final Order No. 53916-53918/2015-ST(DB) - Dated:- 26-11-2015 - SHRI JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri O.P. Aggarwal, CA For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, Advocate ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: Appeal have been filed against respective orders in appeal which upheld rejection of refunds claimed under notification no. 41/2007-ST. The summary of the refunds rejected, period involved and grounds of rejection are summarized below: S. No. Appeal No. Name of the Appellate Amount Rejected Period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The appellant has contended that: i) These services are covered under the port services / port charges as clarified by CBEC F. No. D-II/I/2000-TRE dated 09.07.2001. ii) Vide Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 CBEC clarified that the Notification No. 41/2007-ST does not require verification of the registration certificate of the supplier of services. Further, CBEC vide Circular No. 106/9/2008-ST dated 11.10.2008 further clarified that the it is not incumbent upon the exporter to give proof that the service provider has actually paid services tax to the Government and to that extent rejection of refund claim on transport services on the ground that the proof of payment of service tax has not been submitted is untenable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and procedural aspect cannot be reason for rejecting refund claim. As regards the so called improper invoices it was held by CESTAT in the case of SRF Ltd. (Supra) that so long as the documents (debit notes) reveal the essential details like registration no service provided, service recipient, value of taxable service, refund cannot be rejected [merely because the documents are debit notes]. Further, it has been held by CESTAT in the case of M/s. Nahar Fibres Vs. CCE Chandigarh vide the Final Order no. 58362/2013 dated 26.11.2013 as below: 6. On a true and fair construction of the relevant entry at Sl. No. 2 of the table under exemption Notification No. 41/2007-ST, the inference is compelling that any service provided in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
