TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... description of the goods and quantity are matching with the service providers invoices. The contract between the appellant and foreign buyer clearly indicates that testing to be carried out through SGS is on record therefore refund was wrongly rejected on these services. Refund claim - Port Services - Held that:- the Circular dated 12/3/2009 and the judgment in the case of Commissioner Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd [2014 (11) TMI 973 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and SRF Ltd Vs. Comm of C. Excise Jaipur-I [2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] support the claim of the appellant therefore it needs to be re-considered by the Adjudicating authority. Refund claim - C&F Services - Held that:- container number/shipping bill number and export invoice number are appearing on the bills of service provider, this is sufficient to establish the nexus between input service and the export goods. Refund claim - Foreign Commission Service - Held that:- refund should not have been rejected only because it is pertaining to the period prior to period of export of service. There is no dispute that foreign commission exclusively related to the export of goods. It is also not in dispute that in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by the service provider. (d) Foreign Commission : Exports are for the period prior to the quarter for which the claim should have been filed on quarterly basis. Appellant did not submit relevant documents i.e. written agreement. (e) Insurance : the appellant unable to establish that the insurance policy is for export goods. (f) Storage Warehouse : Storage expenses are for the period which is beyond the period of exports therefore same is not related to export of goods. (g) Transportation GTA: appellant could not give co-relation between goods exported and GTA services received, LR copies were not enclosed with the claim. Apart from the above common issues, in Appeal No. ST/421/11-Mum, additional ground for rejection of claims is that the appellant have claimed draw back on the goods exported during the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 and July, 2008 to September, 2008 for the reason that the Notification No. 41/2007-ST prescribed conditioned that refund claim is not admissible if the assessee claimed draw back on their exports goods. This condition was removed vide Notification No. 33/2008 dated 7/12/2008. Aggrieved by the rejection of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement/challan of service tax payment on the foreign commission. 3.6 Denial of refund on the Transport Services-GTA is on the ground that there is no co-relation between GTA Service with the goods exported in as much as there is no details of export invoices and not specific to goods exported. In this regard he referred to the summary of invoices and service tax paid thereon. The Bill of PVGT Freight Forwarders Logistics Pvt Ltd shows transportation of ₹ 15,000/- and as per bill of Indev Logistics enough details have been mentioned on bills to establish co-relation. In OIA it was mentioned that LR was not submitted whereas there is no mentioned in the OIO and the fact is that LR is available which is also enclosed with appeal papers. 3.7 Regarding the storage and warehouse services, he submits that warehouse was taken on lease at Krishnapattam Port which is exclusively meant for exports of goods only. Appellant is exporting 100% goods therefore it cannot be inferred that storage expenses was incurred for any purpose other than export of goods therefore service of storage have been consumed for the export purpose only. He submits that the original invoice was submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es are more or less common, refund were rejected mainly on the ground that there is no co-relation between export of goods and input service. I find that as the Ld. Counsel took me to various documents, prima facie, it appears that co-relation between input service and export goods is clearly established therefore on this ground refund could not have been rejected. However it appears that both the lower authorities have not carefully examined the documents. 6.2 As regard the Technical Testing and Analysis Services, the description of the goods and quantity are matching with the service providers invoices. The contract between the appellant and foreign buyer clearly indicates that testing to be carried out through SGS is on record therefore refund was wrongly rejected on these services. 6.3 Regarding Port Service, the Circular dated 12/3/2009 and the judgment in case of Adani Enterprises Ltd(supra) and SRF Ltd (supra) support the claim of the appellant therefore it needs to be re-considered by the Adjudicating authority. 6.4 Regarding the C F Services, container number/shipping bill number and export invoice number are appearing on the bills of service provider, this is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
