9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and granite slabs. The appellant had filed the refund application under Notification No.41/07-ST dated 06.10.2007 in respect of the goods exported during the period from April to June, 2008. The refund application with regard to the taxable service, namely, port service, CHA service and GTA service were sought to be denied on the ground that the condition of the Notification read with Circular issued by the CBEC have not been complied with by the appellant. The Adjudication order passed in this regard culminated in the impugned order, upholding rejection of refund application. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Karan Sachdeva, the Id. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that in the Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there on. To support his stand that the benefit of refund in terms of Notification 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007 is available to the appellant, the Id. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Adani Enterprises reported in 2014 (35) S.T.R. 741 (Guj.) and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I reported in 2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.). 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Suchitra Sharma, the Id. Commissioner, A.R. appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since conditions enumerated in the Notification dated 06.10.2007 have not been complied with in entirety the benefit contained therein sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration for refund in terms of the Notification dated 06.10.2007. However, we find that with regard to the GTA service, the appellant has not complied with the requirement of the Notification read with the Circular in its entirety. However, on perusal of the documents available in file, we find that there is co-relation between the goods removed from the factory to the port of export. Thus, even if, some of the condition of the Notification have not been complied with, in our opinion, such condition should be considered as procedural, for which the substantive right of the appellant to claim the benefit of refund as an exporter should not be disallowed. 7. In view of the above analysis and discussions, we are of the opinion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
