2016 (10) TMI 771 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - transportation of empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing of the export goods - N/N. 17/2009 - Held that - decision in the assessee s own case Vippy Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Indore 2014 (8) TMI 377 - CESTAT NEW DELHI relied upon where it was held that the amount of service tax paid on the transportation of the empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing of the export goods and return of the empty container is refundable in terms of notification number 17/2009. In as much as the issue stands decided in the appellants own case we find no merits in the impugned orders of the authorities below. Rejection of refund claim on the ground that ARE-2s and shipping bills have not been enclosed with the reply of the show cause notice - Held that - the said amount may be rejected on the ground of non production of documents in as much as amount is inconsequential - rejection upheld. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund of service tax on transportation of empty containers for export goods under notification 17/2009.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue involved was the refund claimed by the assessee for service tax paid on the transportation of empty containers from yard to factory for stuffing of export goods under notification number 17/2009. The authorities had rejected the refund claim, stating it was not admissible under the said notification. The Tribunal noted that similar rejections for the same assessee had been previously addressed in cases like Vippy Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Indore, where it was held that the service tax paid on such transportation is refundable under notification 17/2009. As the issue had been decided in the appellant's favor previously, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders of the authorities below.

Another issue highlighted in the judgment was the rejection of an amount of &8377; 1622 on the grounds that certain documents, namely ARE-2s and shipping bills, were not enclosed with the reply to the show cause notice. The appellant's advocate agreed that this amount could be rejected due to the non-production of documents, acknowledging its inconsequential nature. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the denial of refund for this specific amount while setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment concluded by disposing of both appeals in the aforementioned manner.