9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/952-954/2010[SM], ST/956-957 & 964/2010-[SM] - A/53628-53633/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 30-5-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, (Technical Member) Present Shri Rajesh Rawat, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri G.R. Singh, AR for the respondent 30-05-2017 ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya 1. M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited has filed three appeals (ST/952 to 954/2010) against respective Orders in Appeal whereunder inter alia their refund claims filed under Notification No.41/2007 ST dated 6/10/2007 as amended have been rejected mainly on account of time bar (6 months to one year) and on the ground that respective input services (pertaining to terminal handling charges, wharfage charges, inspection and certification) were not specified service under Notification No.41/2007 ST dated 6/10/2007. 1.1 The Revenue has also filed three cross appeals (ST no.956, 957 and 964) against the respective orders in appeal mainly on the ground that for certain services refund is barred by time limit and some of the servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-TIOL-86CESTAT-MUM for the said proposition and also submit that in both the cases as stated by him, the very same issue was decided in favour of the assessee therein. 6. On consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had exported the goods and had utilized the services of the service provider for such exports. It is also not in dispute that appellant is eligible for the refund of the amount of service tax paid by the service providers. The dispute is regarding whether the appellant can get the refund of the amount having filed the refund claim on 31.03.2009 instead of 30.09.2008. We find that the first appellate authority has correctly recorded the fact that it is settled principle as to Rules and Notifications are issued from to time to supplement the provisions of main Act and grant of relief of refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods has to be sanctioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled. We also find strong force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that this Bench in the case of Raymond Ltd. (supra) has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present facts and the exporter assessee, therefore, is entitled to the refund claims filed, which have been rejected by the respective impugned orders citing the same as time barred. 4. In the case of services pertaining to terminal handling charges , wharfage charges and inspection and certification the refund claim was rejected on the ground that these services are not specified services under Notification Number 41/ 07 (supra). However, the Tribunal s decision in the case of Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmadabad (30) STR 186 (Tri-l Ahm.) discusses the refund claim in case of the service pertaining to terminal handling charges and concludes that the refund for the input service pertaining to terminal handling charges is admissible in case of exports. Therefore, the appellant is also entitled to the refund claim for this service. The Tribunal in the said decision observes as under: 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I am unable to accept the view that the observations in the order of this Tribunal in the case of Macro Polymers Pvt. Limited did not constitute a ratio as regards eligibility for refund. In fact, I find that this decision w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble time of sixty days from the date of this order, refund sanctioning authority shall be free to take a decision on this issue. In the result, it is held that appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund of service tax with regard to terminal handling charges and as regards bill of Trading charges the matter shall be decided by the original adjudicating authority on the basis of documentary evidence that will be produced by the appellant. Appeals are decided by setting aside the impugned order and by way of remand to Original Adjudicating Authority to decide the terms of above observation. 5. In this case, the rejection has not been made on the ground that it is not Port Service but only on the ground that the Terminal Handling Charge was not specifically mentioned earlier. Since, there is no dispute nor there is any record or observation to show that service tax was not paid under the category of Port Service for Terminal Handling Charges and Port Services, admittedly are notified in the Notification No.41/2007-S.T., refund is admissible. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. 4.1 In the case of the refund claim rejected for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
