9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax paid on GTA service in relation to the export of materials in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 for the quarter ending June 2008. Since the appellant did not file complete documents viz. Documents evidencing export of the said goods and documents evidencing payment of service tax on the specified service for which refund has been claimed as required under clause (f) of the said Notification No.41/2007-ST, a show cause notices was issued proposing rejection of their refund claim. The adjudicating authority, vide impugned order allowed refund of Rs. 1,42,787/- but rejected the refund of Rs. 58,400/- observing that claim of Rs. 19,628/- was time barred as that pertained to quarter ending March, 2008 and the four c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the refund in this case has been claimed under Notification No.41/07-ST dt.6.10.2007, which is a self-contained notification to grant refunds of Service Tax to exporters. There is express provision made in the clause (2) (e) and proviso thereof in the notification that the claim has to be filed within sixty days of the order for export made under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. There is nothing in the language of the Notification to indicate or imply the application of time limit of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. On the contrary, time limit of six months is expressly provided. If Section 11B is applied, the clause 2(e) will become redundant, which cannot be the intent of legislature. For these reasons, I differ with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service provider. Learned Advocate has submitted that the invoice is from CHA Kuehne Nagel and on the basis of similar invoice a refund of Rs. 1,42,787/- was allowed in the same order. He submits that they would co-relate the invoices with the shipping bills. In that situation, I find that the adjudicating authority needs to reexamine the refund claim and appellant's contentions afresh on the basis of documents of the CHA and shipping bills to establish connection between the two as has been done for the refund already sanctioned. 6. In view of the foregoing, (i) the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to the amount of Rs. 19,628/- is upheld; (ii) The matter relating to the refund of Rs. 38,772/- is remanded back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
