TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re procedural in nature - Tribunal in the case of M/s Radiant Textiles Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 242 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] has held that the appellant has not produced adequate documents/records to demonstrate entitlement of the benefit of notification dated 7.7.2009. Since, the responsibility entirely lies with the appellant to prove that the goods were in fact exported by utilising the taxable services, it has to produce adequate documents, which I find were not produced at the time of adjudication of the matter - the matter needs reexamination. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/52032/2016-SM - A/58740/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate - for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication order in paragraph 18, where the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Service Tax has recorded her finding that the documents were not produced by the appellant regarding export of the goods and utilisation of the services for such export. Thus, he submits that the benefit of exemption notification is not available to the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Notification No.18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 was issued with the objective of exempting taxable services used for export of the goods. Once the assessee satisfies the department that the goods were in fact exported and the taxable services were used/utilized for such exportation, the substantive part of the notification is considered to be satisfied and in such eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce regarding non availment of services on the export of canalised item, project export, or export financed under lines of credit extended by Government of India or EXIM Bank, or export made by Indian partner in a company with equity participation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary has also not been submitted by the Noticee as required under condition (4)(ii) of the notification within time limit along with EXP-2 return. 6. Since, the responsibility entirely lies with the appellant to prove that the goods were in fact exported by utilising the taxable services, it has to produce adequate documents, which I find were not produced at the time of adjudication of the matter. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
