9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the course of export, whether the same have been rightly refused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer and exporter of cotton garments, had filed claiming refund of Service tax paid in the course of services received in their business of export. The details of which are as follows: 1) Appeal No. ST/520/2011-[DB] Export period 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2008 Refund claimed Rs.2,35,615/- Refund rejected Rs.2,35,615/- Order-in-Original 25/Refund/2010 dt. 27.01.2010 Order-in-Appeal No. 475-ST/LKO/2010 dt. 24.12.2010 2) Appeal No. ST/534/2011-[DB] Export period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 Refund claimed Rs.3,15,813/- Refund rejected Rs.3,15,813/- Order-in-Original 164/Refund/2009 dt. 21.12.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt evidence that services are taxable services and refund claim should be processed based on input invoices/bills/challans showing service tax charged by the service providers-as clarified in para-4 of Circular No.106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008. 4.2.3 Accordingly, we hold that this objection is untenable. 4.3.1 The Third objection is that as per proviso 1(d) of the notification, refund of input service tax is allowed, if no Cenvat credit of service tax paid on specified services used for export has been taken. The findings of the lower court below are that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed. 4.3.2 The ld. counsel states that they had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service. Therefore, refund should be granted, in such cases, if otherwise in order. 4.4.3 In view of the clarification of CBEC - Board Circular, we hold this ground is also not tenable. 4.5.1 The next ground of rejection is regarding transport of goods by rail that is the services of transporting the container from the ICD, by Container Corporation of India (Concor) to the Gateway Port. The objection in the impugned order is that the appellant failed to certify the conditions of the services by Rail and hence refund is not available. 4.5.2 The appellant have taken us through the sample invoice of Concor in the appeal paper book, in which Concor have given the container number, cost of freight and the cost of handling charges. The name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 4.7.3 Accordingly, we allow this ground & dismiss objection of Revenue. 4.8.1 The next ground of rejection, which is in Appeal No. ST/534/2010 is with respect to C & F Agent Services on the ground that the said service was notified by way of amendment with effect from 07/12/2008. Since all the bills of the C & F Agents were issued prior to the said date, no refund of Service tax was held payable. 4.8.2 The ld. Counsel, have taken me through the invoice of the C & F Service provider - M/s Scan Ocean Lines. Ltd. From the bill it is evident that the services have been provided in the nature of terminal handling charges and documentation charges. 4.8.3 Accordingly, we find that these services are eligible services at the same are als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our precedent ruling in appellant's own case vide Final Order No.A/70393-70394/2017-SM dated 30.03.2017 and in view of our findings as indicated hereinabove, these two appeals stand allowed, and we set aside the impugned orders, to the extent refund have been rejected.
8. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to re-compute the refund(s) in view of the findings and directions contained herein above. Further, the refunds so computed shall be disbursed to the appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with interest as per rules. The appellant is also given liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority with a copy of this order, and calculation of refund.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
