9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 870 - AT - Service TaxGTA services - export of goods - Notification 14/07-ST dated 6.10.07 - export invoices numbers are not mentioned In the lorry receipt - held that - service tax should not be exported along with services, service tax refund has been allowed to the exporter on the amount of service tax paid services used in or in relation to the export of goods. In the present case, there is no dispute on fact of export of the goods by the appellant nor there is any dispute that GTA services had been used in the export of the said goods. - the details of export invoices are reflected in the shipping bills. But, export invoice details could not be mentioned in respective lorry receipts. However, they are in a position to establish the link between the lorry receipt and the respective export invoices under which the goods were exported. There is no need to examine whether the said condition is substantive or otherwise as I find that on similar issue, this Tribunal in the case of M.R. Organization (2009 (10) TMI 402 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) after interpreting the said Notification - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Refund claim of Service Tax for exported goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended; Rejection of refund claims due to missing export invoice numbers in lorry receipts and shipping bills; Interpretation of conditions for availing refund benefits under the Notification; Dispute over whether mentioning export invoice numbers in lorry receipts is a substantive condition. Analysis: The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & S.Tax, BBSR, regarding the refund claim of Service Tax for exported goods. The appellant, an exporter of iron ore fines, had claimed refunds under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended. The adjudicating authority partially allowed the claims but rejected a portion related to GTA services due to missing export invoice numbers in lorry receipts and shipping bills. The appellant contended that despite the missing export invoice numbers in the lorry receipts, all details of export, including invoice numbers, were available and could be correlated with the shipping bills. The appellant argued that the missing invoice numbers were not a substantive condition for availing benefits under the Notification. Reference was made to Supreme Court decisions and Tribunal judgments supporting this interpretation. On the other hand, the Department argued that the conditions in the Notification were mandatory, and all requirements must be satisfied for claiming refunds. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Department emphasized the mandatory nature of the conditions laid down in the Notification. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was established that there was no dispute regarding the export of goods or the use of GTA services. The main contention was the absence of export invoice numbers in the lorry receipts and shipping bills. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where missing details were allowed to be provided separately for verification before granting refunds. Considering the similarities with the previous case, the Tribunal remanded the present case to the original authority for verification of the appellant's claim regarding the use of GTA services in exporting goods. The original authority was instructed to establish a link between the lorry receipt, export invoices, and shipping bills before deciding on the refund claim. The appellant was to be granted a reasonable opportunity for a hearing during the denovo adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by way of remand.
|
