TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is not pressed by the Ld. Advocate, impugned order upheld. Refund claim - export clearances made prior to 01.04.2008 - Held that: - this aspect is not forthcoming from the annexure to the SCN - it is fit to remand this issue to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of this issue as per law - matter on remand. Refund claim - courier services - Held that: - the matter is being remanded to enable the appellants to produce all the related invoices issued by the service provider. Once the appellant is able to establish the co-relation between the goods exported and/or export documents and the invoices issued by such service provider, the refund should be sanctioned - matter on remand. Appeal disposed off. - ST/428/2010 - FI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 26.03.2010. Hence this appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Advocate Shri Muthuvenkataraman submits that the appeal has been rejected on four grounds. a) First ground for rejection of refund is that certain services have been received prior to April 2008. In this regard he places reliance on the Board s Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, wherein the Sl.No. 1 it has been clarified that refund of claims of service tax on specified services used for exports of goods made in the quarter March 2008 to June 2008 could be filed upto 31.12.2008. Hence, the claim amount of ₹ 10,23,976/- rejected on the ground that export clearances have been made beyond the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the process of export of goods manufactured by the appellant therein, held that non mentioning of IEC code in the invoices appellant as consignor, should not be a bar for sanctioning the refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR makes the following submissions:- a) while acknowledging the fact of Board s Circular dated 12.03.2009, it appears from the SCN produced by the Ld. Advocate and also the adjudication order, that refund of service tax amount has been claimed for input services for the period prior to April 2008. The Ld. AR draws our attention to para-10 of the adjudication order, where in it has been indicated that part of the claim relating to such period prior to April 2008 is to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplication of these two clarifications read together, along with the amendment brought forth in the definition of port services, in our view, is that the exporter should not be unduly burdened with a condition to establish that the service provider was registered under port services. The learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment in Commissioner v. Adani Enterprises Ltd. - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 741 (Guj.) wherein the Hon ble High Court has considered the very same issue and held in favour of the assessee. The said decision squarely covers the issue in the present case the facts being similar. Revenue placed reliance on the decision rendered by CESTAT in Rajasthan Textile Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
