9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of refund should be available under the head Port Service in terms of notification dated 06.10.2007. In this context, the Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd., [2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] have held that irrespective of the classification of service, if the services are provided within the port, the same should qualify as port service for the purpose of benefit of refund. Thus, I am of the view that the assessee is eligible for refund of ₹ 16,72,923/- With regard to GTA service availed for transportation of goods from the place of removal to the port of export, I find that the refund claim was filed after issuance of the Notification No. 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008. I also find that in an identical situation, this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is engaged in export of iron ore and granite slabs. During the disputed period, the assessee had filed the refund application for ₹ 33,33,715/- under Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007. The said refund application was allowed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise of Service Tax vide order dated 17.07.2008. The said order was reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the impugned order dated 9.07.2010 was passed by him. In the said review order, out of the sanctioned refund amount of ₹ 33,33,715/-, proceedings initiated for recovery of ₹ 15,46,270/- were dropped and the balance amount of ₹ 17,87,445/- was ordered for recovery. The reasons assigned for recovery of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008 and after the date of amendment, the refund claim was filed by the assessee. He further submits that identical issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of East India Minerals Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Bhubaneswar reported in 2012 (27) STR 18 (Tri. Kolkata). 3.2 With regard to testing and analysis service, the Ld. Advocate has submitted the certificate showing the agreement entered into between the assessee and the overseas buyers. Thus, he submits that since the agreement was entered between the assessee and the overseas buyer, the condition of Notification dated 6.10.2007 has been duly complied with for grant of refund. 3.3 With regard to the grounds raised in the Revenue s appeal, the Ld. Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the refund claim was filed after issuance of the Notification No. 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008. I also find that in an identical situation, this Tribunal in the case of East India Minerals Ltd. (supra) has allowed the refund claim to the appellant. The relevant portion in the decision is extracted herein below. Following the ratio of the above cited decisions, and the Board s circular, and also keeping in view the objective of the Government policy to encourage exports and not to burden the export goods with domestic taxes, we are of the view that the impugned refund claims should be allowed, if otherwise due, since on the date of filing the claims, the requirement of the notification has been satisfied and the service taxes paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport of goods, the refund claim of ₹ 15,46,270/- should be allowed to the assessee. To sum up the appeal is disposed of in following terms:- (i) The assessee is entitled for refund of ₹ 17,87,445/- and the impugned order to that extent is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (ii) With regard to refund claim of ₹ 15,46,270/- filed by Revenue, the matter is remanded to the original authority for verification of the agreements along with Lorry receipts, evidencing transportation of goods from the place of removal to the port of export. If the said documents are in order, the benefit of refund of ₹ 15,46,270/- shall be extended to the assessee.. 11. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. ( Dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
