9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant for transportation of goods at port for export with regard to the goods exported, therefore, the said defect is technical in nature - in terms of Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 procedural infractions in respect of export documents are required to be ignored while granting refund - refund cannot be denied. Refund claim - denial on the ground that invoice has been issued in the name of head office of the appellant for the input services - Held that: - this is a technical defect - there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it has been clarified that the service provided/received in the port area do qualify as port services. Therefore, I hold that refund claim on this ground cannot be denied to the appellant. (B) Denial of refund claim on account of discrepancy in the transport of documents, it is pointed out that the name of the ICD Code etc. are not mentioned in the transportation documents along with description of the goods: I find that it is not in dispute that this service has not been received by the appellant for transportation of goods at port for export with regard to the goods exported, therefore, the said defect is technical in nature. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be denied as per the decision in the case of Sopariwala Exports reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 2009 (244) ELT 65 (Tri. Ahmd.) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 3. The Revenue in their ground has raised only technical grounds that the documents were not in the name of the assessee s factory situated at silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. Therefore, I hold that refund claim cannot be rejected on this ground. (D) Denial of refund claim on account of tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
