9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different services. In terms of the conditions of the notification, the refund claim is required to be filed to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or registered office or head office, as the case may be, within a period of one year from the date of export. The date of export for the purpose of this notification is the date on which the proper officer of customs makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for export under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, that is, the date of 'let export' order. 1.1 In this case 12 refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST were filed out of which 11 claims were for the amounts of Rs. 3,56,483/-, Rs. 79,259/-, Rs. 52,745/-, Rs. 2,68,016/-,Rs. 1,18,497/-Rs. 5,30,747/-Rs. 1,62,346/-, Rs. 1,41,867/-, Rs. 4,02,514/-, Rs. 1,04,974/- and Rs. 2,51,020/- and were only partially sanctioned by separate orders for the amounts of Rs. 39,977/-, Rs. 98,017/-, Rs. 20,844/-, Rs. 58,505/-, Rs. 25,302/-, Rs. 30,347/-, Rs. 29,518/-, Rs. 15,388/-, Rs. 55,620/-, Rs. 24,188/- and Rs. 50,040/- respectively and the claims for the balance amounts were rejected. The t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it. He emphasized that Notification No. 17/2009-ST provides for tax exemption in respect of certain services, as specified in the Notification, which have been used in the export of the goods out of India, that the exemption under this Notification is subject to fulfillment of certain general condition and also service wise conditions as mentioned in the Notification, that in respect of the refund claim of Rs. 1,87,734/- for Jan.'09, the same was required to be filed in the office of the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner within a period of one year from the date of 'Let Export Order', but the claim was filed long after this date, that just because the assessee had filed the refund claim within time in the office of the Assistant Commissioner which was not the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's office and he was advised by that Assistant Commissioner to file the claim in the office of the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, it would not save the claim from becoming time barred, as claim would be treating as filed only on the date on which the same was filed in the office of the Jurisdictional Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd finalized by the Jurisdiction Central Excise & Service Tax Authorities at the end of the service providers. As regards the appeal No. ST/810-811/2012 against order-in-appeal dt.30.03.12, he pleaded that the impugned order upholding the rejection of refund claim is totally wrong, that as regards clearing and forwarding service and CHA service, the export invoice numbers are mentioned in the invoices of the service providers and cross verification could be done from the export invoice number mentioned in the correspondence export documents/shipping bills and, therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to say that the service provider's invoices cannot be co-related with the shipping bills, that as regards the 'Port Service', the assessee has exported the goods by the availing the service and ultimately the shipping companies who are responsible for making payment to port authority, that the appellant have included all the services provided in the port under Port Service, as the same has been clarified by Board vide Circular No. 104/07/ 08-ST dt. 16.08.08 which says that the service which are incidental to main service should be classified in the category of the main service, that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should have been made to correlate the service provider's invoices with the shipping bills on the basis of the export invoice numbers. Moreover, when there is provision of self certification and certification regarding availment of the services, in question, has been given by the assessee, the same has to be accepted unless there are serious doubt about the correctness of the same. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the Commissioners order on this point. 8. As regards the third issue regarding service of Terminal Handling and Account Management charges etc. when service tax by the Jurisdictional Authorities has been charged in respect of these services under the Heading 'Port Service' and 'Custom House Agent service' respectively, the Assistant Commissioner while considering refund claim of assessee under Notification No. 17/09-ST cannot review, the assessment of service tax done by the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. 8.1 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order dt. 01.11.11 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. As regards the appeal No. S/810-811/2012 against order-in-appeal dt.30.03.12 passed by Commissioner of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
