TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neral open ended certificate is erroneous and not tenable, especially when the notification is silent w.r.t the format in which the certificate has to be submitted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - S. Tax. Appeal No. 75099, 75101-75102, 75105-75111, 75113-75115, 75117-75118, 75120-75122, 75124, 75126-75127, 75132-75134, 75136-75137/2019 - FO/75516-75541/2019 - Dated:- 24-4-2019 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Partha Shah, CA for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. AR for the Respondent ORDER PER P. K. CHOUDHARY : Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants, Royalline Resources Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s / challans and therefore the same was invalid d) As per para 2 (i) (D) and (F), the claimant should have submitted a certificate to the effect that specified service to which the document pertains has been received by them, the service tax payable thereon has been paid and the specified service has been used for export of goods under the shipping bill number. However no such certificate has been furnished. e) Nothing has been discussed in the OIO regarding the source / origin of movement and manner of procurement of goods being exported. f) The invoice submitted did not contain the relevant particulars required to be furnished for claiming the refund Accordingly, the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming refund does not indicate that the impugned service providers are person authorised by port or other port The sanctioning authority has considered the service eligible to be port service in all cases, but the OIO lacks in elaborating as to whether the sanctioning authority has satisfied that the services were rendered by a port/ persons authorized by the port. The respondents have merely stated in their cross objections that they had submitted all such certificates / licenses granted by specific ports, however, the same were not submitted during the Appellate proceedings. Therefore, the Department objection succeeds. Certificate of Chartered Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following submissions before me: a) The Ld. Comm (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no procedural compliance on the Appellants side and therefore the reliance on the decision of Harichand Sri Gopal [2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC)] and Indian Oil Corporation Limited [2012 (276) ELT 145 (SC)] was uncalled for. The decisions relied upon can be referred to only in cases where there is a procedural lapse. In the current case, there is no procedural lapse. b) W.r.t the point regarding non-verification of whether the service provider had claimed exemption or not as required under para 2(a), the Appellants stated as under: The Comm (A) has erred in shifting the onus to prove that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es: 1. Gujarat Tea Processors Packers Limited vs. CCE [2012 (27) STR 158 (Ahmedabad Tribunal)] 2. Indoworth (I) Limited vs. CCE, Nagpur [2012 (25) STR 78 (Mumbai Tribunal)] 3. Stone Shippers [2016 (45) STR 445 (Mumbai Tribunal)] 4. Adani Enterprises Limited [2014 (35) STR 741 (Guj)] 5. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. CCE [2012 (27) STR 160 (Ahmedabad Tribunal)] 6. CCE vs. Ramdev Foods Private Limited [2010 (19) STR 833 (Ahmedabad Tribunal)] d) W.r.t the point regarding CA Certificate not being valid, the Appellants stated that there is no law which states that a certificate without date affixed to it is invalid. Further, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 221 (Tri Hyd)] d. Rans Pharma Corporation [2014 (314) ELT 953 (GOI)] 6. The Ld. DR justified the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) and further relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Principal CST vs. R R Global Enterprises Private Limited [2016 (45) STR 5 (AP)] and Laxmi Solvex vs. CCE, Indore [2017 (3) GSTL 436 (Tri Del)]. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. I find that there is no need for a claimant to file evidence to substantiate that service providers have not availed exemption/ tax benefit, especially when there was no such condition in the notification itself. Thus by holding so, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has added his own condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
