9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 103 - AT - Service TaxGTA services - Refund claim - rejected on ground export invoices numbers are not mentioned in the lorry receipt and the shipping bills as required under Notification 14/07-ST dated 6.10.07 as amended by Notification 3/2008-ST dated 19.2.2008 Held that - Case remitted to the original authority for verification of the of the claim of the Appellant on the use of GTA service in the export of goods by establishing a link between the lorry receipt and the export invoices and also the export invoices and shipping bills
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.11/ST/B-II/2010 dated 10.3.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Customs & Service Tax, BBSR. - Refund claim of Service Tax on port services and GTA services. - Disagreement on the definition of "place of removal" for export. - Non-compliance with conditions of Notification No. 41/2007-ST regarding export invoice details. - Mandatory nature of conditions under the Notification for availing benefits. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting a refund claim of Service Tax for services used in exporting goods. The dispute arose from the rejection of a portion of the claim related to GTA services based on the grounds that mines were not considered a place of removal and export invoice details were not mentioned as required by Notification No. 41/2007-ST. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the argument that direct export from mines to port does not constitute a place of removal but upheld the rejection due to non-compliance with the condition of specifying export invoice details in the lorry receipt and shipping bills. This disagreement led to the appellant's appeal seeking a review of the decision. 3. The appellant's representative argued that despite the lack of export invoice details in the lorry receipt, all necessary information was available during the export process. Referring to relevant legal precedents and a Tribunal judgment, the representative contended that the lack of specific details in the lorry receipt should not be a barrier to claiming the refund for GTA services used in exporting goods. 4. The Department's representative emphasized the mandatory nature of conditions under the Notification, stating that full compliance is necessary to avail benefits. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Department's position was that adherence to all conditions laid down in the Notification is essential for eligibility. 5. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal acknowledged the undisputed export of goods and the use of GTA services. The main contention remained the absence of export invoice details in the lorry receipt. Despite this, the Tribunal noted that the appellant could establish a link between the lorry receipt, export invoices, and shipping bills to support the refund claim for GTA services. 6. In light of a similar precedent where the Tribunal allowed a refund claim despite missing details, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the original authority for verification of the appellant's claim regarding the use of GTA services in exporting goods. The Tribunal directed the original authority to examine the link between the lorry receipt, export invoices, and shipping bills before deciding on the eligibility of the refund claim for GTA services. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further adjudication.
|
