9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07-ST as the said proviso would in that case be redundant. There is natural presumption that legislature would not incorporate redundant provisions in law. Further if the said proviso did not affect the eligibility of the exporters for refund under Notification No.41/2007-ST then there was no need for the Govt. to delete the said proviso vide Notification No.33/2008-ST dated 7.12.2008.There is nothing in Notification No.33/2008-ST dated 7.12.2008 which expressly or impliedly gave it retrospective effect. It is thus clear that when the goods were exported under claim of drawback, the impugned refund claims would not be admissible by virtue of proviso (e) to Notification No.41/2007-ST also held by CESTAT in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty Amount rejected Period of rejection Grounds of rejection 11 ST/1007/2009 M/s Bharat Art Crafts, Jodhpur 72,550/- 01.01.2008 to 31.3.2008 1. Exports under claim of Drawback 2. Did not file declaration under Notification as the Appellant was not registered both under Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as Finance Act, 1994 3. Services not covered under Port Services 4. Non submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services 12. ST/1008/2009 M/s Shivam Exports, Jodhpur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(ea) of the Customs Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and the impugned services these services were used after clearance of the goods from the factory. In this regard, it is useful to reproduce below the provision of the said Rule. Rule 3(2)(ea): In determining the amount or rate of drawback under this Rule, the Central Govt. shall have regard to the average amount of tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services for the manufacturing or processing or for containing or packing the export goods . It is evident from the above quoted Rule that it merely makes it mandatory for the Central Government to have regard to the average amount of tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .41/2007-ST. It has been so held by CESTAT also in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills vs. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2015 (37) STR 410 (Tri-Del.). 3. However as regards the appeal No.ST/1008/2009 in respect of Shivam Exports, as pleaded by the appellant, the grounds namely services not covered under port service, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax under GTA service and and debit note not being prescribed document for this purpose have been analysed in appellant's own case and decided in its favour vide CESTAT Final Order No.ST/A/53916 - 53918/16-CU (DB) dated 26.11.2015. Regarding CHA services the benefit was denied as the description of goods was not mentioned in the invoice issued by CHA. We have perused the representative i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
