9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. counsel have taken me through the relevant shipping bills, wherein the payment of commission have been effected. Further, drawn my attention to the debit notes issued by the foreign service providers, wherein reference of letters of credit, invoice numbers of the appellant, etc. are available, in support of the export transaction. It is also not the case of revenue that the appellant have paid more commission than the permissible amount i.e. 2% of the aforesaid value of the exports - rejection not tenable. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not submit any evidence that the service provider, were authorized by port trust or other port to render the services - Held that: - Board Circular No. 112 clarified that the granting of refund to exporters on taxable services that he receives and uses for export, do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service - refund allowed. Refund claim - CHA services - denial on the ground that the conditions of CHA Services as given in serial No. 13 of the notification not met - Held that: - bill of lading number and date, export container number, vessel name, port of loading, port of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is, whether the refund claims made by the appellant an exporter of cotton garments, made under the provisions of Notification No.41/2007 ST as amended, being Service tax paid and utilized in the course of export, whether the same have been rightly refused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer and exporter of cotton garments, had filed claiming refund of Service tax paid in the course of services received in their business of export. The details of which are as follows: 1) Appeal No. ST/1108/2010-SM Export period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008 Refund claimed ₹ 4,09,739/- Refund rejected ₹ 4,09,739/- Order-in-Original 72/Refund/2009 dt. 15.07.2009 Order-in-Appeal No. 89-ST/LKO/2010 dt. 28.04.2010 2) Appeal No. ST/1411/2010-SM Export period 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 Refund claimed ₹ 15,62, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29/08/2008, he urges that the circular with respect to All Industry Rates of Drawback 2008 09 wherein it is provided the incidence of service tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services in the manufacturing or processing of export goods has also been factored. The Commissioner may ensure that the exporter do not availed of the refund of this tax through any other mechanism while claiming the All Industry Rates of Drawback 2008 09. The ld. counsel states that the mischief of duty drawback is not attracted as they have sought refund of the service tax paid on post clearance Services from their factory. He also relies on the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Versus Rajasthan Synthetics Ltd. 2011 T.I.O.L. (243) Cestat, Delhi, wherein it has been held that Service tax paid on the taxable services which are not used as input service in the manufacture of export goods is not taken into consideration, while fixing All Industry Rates of Drawback. Thus, claim under Notification No. 41/2007 ST as amended, is available to the manufactures/exporters. 6. Ld. A. R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order on this issue. Having considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service provider is holding registration under clearing and forwarding agency and business auxiliary services. The learned counsel have taken me through the relevant portion of Board Circular No. 112, wherein it is clarified that the granting of refund to exporters on taxable services that he receives and uses for export, do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted, in such cases, if otherwise in order. In view of the clarification of CBEC - Board Circular, I hold this ground is also not tenable. 10 The next ground of rejection is with respect to CHA Services, the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of CHA Services as given in serial No. 13 of the notification. The ld. counsel have taken me through the sample invoices of the CHA, on record, wherein I find that bill of lading number and date, export container number, vessel name, port of loading, port of delivery, description of export goods etc., is given. In this view of the matter, I hold that all the relevant information is available for allowing the refund of CHA Services received. 11. The next ground of rejection is with respect to C F A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o December 2008 on 30/06/2009. As para 2 (e) of the notification provided for filing of refund within 60 days, the same is time barred by limitation. The ld. counsel have taken me through the amending Notification No. 32/2008 ST dated 18/11/2008, wherein the time limit for filing refund have been increased up to 6 months. Further, by way of example it had been clarified in the said notification that for the refund claim of April to June quarter 2008, the refund claim can be filed up to 31/12/2008. Accordingly, in view of the amending notification, I hold that the refund claim which have been admittedly filed on 30/06/2009 is within time and this ground of rejection is also set aside. 16. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed in part as indicated hereinabove. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to re-compute the refund(s) in view of the findings and directions contained herein above. Further, the refund so computed shall be disbursed to the appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest as per rules. The appellant is also given liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority with a copy of this order, and calculation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
