9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also not contested by the respondent/Revenue that appellant was entitled to refund of service tax on transportation/freight charges incurred on transportation of exported goods from the place of clearance to the port of export though not on transportation of empty containers. A clarification dated 19.7.2012 addressed by the appellant, in response to the departmental notice dated 24 21.6.2012 contains the clear assertion that transportation and freight charges were not incurred on empty containers. - appellant is entitled to succeed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50571 of 2014-Ex(SM) - Final Order No. A/53519/2015-SM(BR) - Dated:- 24-11-2015 - G. Raghuram For the Appellant : Shri R Krishnan, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioning refund of ₹ 93,308/- and rejecting refund of ₹ 69,826/- on a presumption that the refund claimed on transportation/freight was in respect of transportation of empty containers and that the appellant had failed to provide any clarification in response to the notice dated 21.6.2012 and within the time provided for such response. 3. On 14.8.2012 the primary adjudicating authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 revised the adjudication order dated 24.7.2013. This order noticed receipt of appellants clarification dated 19.7.2012 regarding transportation and freight and consequently rectified the adjudication order, allowing refund claim of ₹ 69,826/- as well. 4. On 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty containers. A clarification dated 19.7.2012 addressed by the appellant, in response to the departmental notice dated 24 21.6.2012 contains the clear assertion that transportation and freight charges were not incurred on empty containers. This clarification was a part of the record of adjudication when the ld. Assistant Commissioner took up the matters on 14.8.2012. The corrigendum that was issued was therefore wholly within the scope of the powers of rectification under Section 74 of the 1994 Act. The contrary conclusion by the ld. appellate Commissioner in the impugned order is thus fundamentally misconceived. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, the appellant is entitled to succeed. The impugned order invites invalidation. We accept the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
