2015 (3) TMI 1237 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007, as amended by subsequent Notification No.3/2008-ST dated 19.2.2008 - export of calibrated iron ore lumps - transportation of the said product from the mines to the port of export - the appellant has not fulfilled the condition No.(iii) of Sl. No.11 of the Notification inasmuch as the details of exporters invoice relating to export of the goods transported from mines to port of export do not stand mentioned in the lorry receipts - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Jumbo Mining Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2012 (7) TMI 739 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , where it was held that as the consignments are of huge quantum, they cannot be transported by a single lorry and are required to be aggregated at the port premises before shipping documents could be prepared. In such circumstances, strict compliance of the above condition cannot be made and the same should be ascertained by broadly correlating evidence of transport and service tax paid on such transportation charges and quantum exported. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of the said service tax paid on transportation of the goods subject to verification. Inasmuch the lower authorities rejected the refund on the above legal issue and they have not gone into the verification of the said claims, which is required to be done at the level of original adjudicating authority. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals and remand the same to the original adjudicating authority for the sole purpose of verification of the assessees claim.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax on transportation of calibrated iron ore lumps denied due to missing details of exporters' invoice in lorry receipts.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved three appeals disposed of by a common order. The appellants, exporters of calibrated iron ore lumps, paid service tax on the transportation of the product from mines to the port of export for different periods. They claimed a refund of the service tax under Notification No.41/2007-ST, as amended by subsequent Notification No.3/2008-ST. However, the refund claims were denied by the authorities below citing non-fulfillment of condition No.(iii) of Sl. No.11 of the Notification, as the details of exporters' invoice were not mentioned in the lorry receipts.

The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions in similar cases, such as Jumbo Mining Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad, where it was observed that due to the large quantity of consignments, they cannot be transported by a single lorry and need to be aggregated at the port premises before shipping documents can be prepared. The Tribunal emphasized that strict compliance with the condition regarding invoice details cannot always be met in such situations. This view was supported by another decision in the case of Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and held that the appellant is entitled to a refund of the service tax paid on transportation, subject to verification.

The Tribunal highlighted that the lower authorities had rejected the refund solely on the legal issue without verifying the claims made by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, remanding them to the original adjudicating authority for the verification of the claims. The judgment emphasized the importance of verifying the claims at the original adjudicating authority level before making a decision. Ultimately, all three appeals were disposed of in the above manner, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the refund claims.