9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax registration and filed refund claim of service tax of Rs. 4,00,096/- on 5.3.10 on account of use of taxable services for export of 11,000 MT of Chrome Concentrate in March, 1999 as per Notification 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant are not the exporter of the goods but the exporter of the said goods was M/s MMTC Ltd., BBSR. Being aggrieved , the appellants had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the relevant agreement between the appellants and M/s MMTC, came to the conclusion that M/s MMTC was the actual exporter of the goods and is entitled to get refund under Notification 17/2009-ST. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd and Another reported in 2010 (36) VST 1 (SC) delivered on September 14, 2010 wherein their Lordship affirming judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that when there is an inseverable link between the local sale or purchase on export and if it is clear that the local between the parties is inextricably linked with the export of the goods, then a claim under Section 5 (3) for exemption from State sales tax is justified, in which case, the same goods theory has no application. On the basis of the fact, the Lordship had arrived at a conclusion that the transaction between the assessee and the exporter in that case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, but the Chrome Concentrate was mentioned as Cargo and supplies were to be made to M/s IMR Metallurgical Resources AG, Dammstrasse, Switzerland. Besides, under the Arbitration Clause, it is made clear that if any dispute arising between M/s MMTC and the foreign buyers, then the sellers shall accept the full liability under the same without dispute. All these facts indicate that the agreement dated 26th February, 2009 though termed as sale agreement between the appellant and M/s MMTC, but there is a link between the goods exported and the appellant through M/s MMTC. I have also seen the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another (supra), wherein their Lordship allowed the benefit of export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
