9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion imposed in column (4) of the table and that being the case there is no need to insist on the type of co-relation being insisted upon by Revenue. Rail freight issued by CONCOR - Held that:- The goods have been taken to ICD is not disputed. The container numbers are also shown to reasonably establish that the service was in respect of export of goods. In this case refund is authorized as per item 7 in the table to the Notification. A1l what is required is that the invoice issued by the exporter should indicate that the goods were exported through the ICD concerned. There is no case made out that such condition is not met. Thus no reason to deny refund in respect of this service either. CHA service - Held that:- The appellants have s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e extent of 99%. In respect of certain services availed by them for the export activity they claimed refund of service tax paid by them under the provisions of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The adjudicating authority granted such refund on many of the services involved but he refused to grant such refund as in the case of service tax paid on scientific testing services, CHA services and rail freight. Out of these the major amount relates to scientific testing services. 2. The reason in respect of testing services, given by the adjudicating authority is that the appellants have not been able to establish correlation between the consignment which was sent for testing and samples which was exported. In the case of rail freight, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree on board of value of export, certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant who audits the annual accounts of the exporter is required. The claim in these appeals is much less than 0.25% of the declared FOB value of export for the relevant period. Therefore the said provision is not applicable. Thus the submission of the AR for appellant is that the claim is rejected without properly considering the matter in the light of the Notification and also circulars issued by the CBEC. 5. The ld. AR for Revenue is relying more on the finding of original adjudicating authority rather than the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The substance of their argument is that unless proper correlation between the service availed of the goods exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f shipping bills. I find that the refund in respect of this service is governed by item 11 in the Table to the Notification. The Conditions prescribed in column (4) of the table annexed to the Notification in respect of this service are the following: "Exporter shall produce, - (i) invoice issued by custom house agent for providing services specified in column (3) specifying, - (a) number and date of shipping bill; (b) number and date of the invoice issued by the exporter relating to export of goods; (c) details of all the charges, whether or not reimbursable, collected by the custom house agent from the exporter in relation to export goods; (ii) details of other taxable services provided by the said custom house agent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
