TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im - procedural infractions cannot take away the substantive benefit in cases where export of goods is established. The lower authorities did not examine all the supporting documents submitted by the appellant. It is to be noted here that the decided cases dealing similar set of facts and Board’s clarifications were also to be considered before deciding on the eligibility of the appellant for the claims - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.1075 of 2011 - ST/A/52222/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Batra, C.A. and Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract number, BL number, shipping bill number, details of export product and these are to be linked up with the service tax suffered by the appellant and for refund now claimed. The learned Consultant relied on various circulars issued by the Ministry as well as decision of the Tribunal in similar set of facts. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. It is further submitted that the condition of Notification No.41/2007-ST are mandatory and cannot be diluted by the sanctioning authority. She relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Hyderabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of S.T. Vs. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (45) S.T.R. 5 (A.P.) . 4. We have heard both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity on the ground of small procedural errors, if any, is not sustainable. However, in the later part of the impugned examining the claim under specific service headings, he upheld rejection of refund. We also note the reliance placed by appellant on decision of Tribunal while disposing of the appeals on claims relating to Notification No.41/2007-ST in the following cases :- (i) CCE, Indore vs. Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 783 (Tri. Del.) ; (ii) Greenspan Agritech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune I reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 229 (Tri. Mumbai) ; (iii) Laxmi Enterprises vs. CST, Mumbai reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 519 (Tri. Mumbai) ; (iv) K. Prashant Enterprises vs. CST, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the power of processing the application for exemption to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the requirement are fulfilled . We note that in the impugned proceedings before the lower authorities the supporting documents submitted by the appellants have not been examined for a specific finding. It is necessary to record as to which of the specific statutory condition, vital to the claim, has not been fulfilled in any specific document. No such findings are recorded by Adjudicating Authority. 6. The impugned order also rejected the refund claim filed in respect of technical testing services on the ground that written agreements were not submitted. The learned Consultant submitted that they have all the supported evidence and lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
