9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax charged by the service providers-as clarified in para-4 of Circular No.106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008 - refund allowed. Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed - Held that: - appellant had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is available in the appeal paper book, stating that they have not availed Cenvat credit during the period in question. The ld. counsel also states that the appellant was availing Central Excise Exemption under the provisions of Notification No. 30/2004 CE under which they were entitled to clear their goods without Central Excise duty, subject to the condition that they do not take Cenvat credit. The ld. counsel stated that the benefit of said Notification No. 30/2004 CE have never been disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, states that this ground of rejection is not tenable - refund allowed. 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, clarifies that the granting of refund to expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch details are co-relatable with the let export order and the invoice of the appellant - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/520 & 534/2011-CU[DB] - ST/A/70595-70596/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 29-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri S.C. Kamra Shri Kartikey Narain, Advocates for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in these appeals 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/520/2011-[DB] Export period 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2008 Refund claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers-as clarified in para-4 of Circular No.106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008. 4.2.3 Accordingly, we hold that this objection is untenable. 4.3.1 The Third objection is that as per proviso 1(d) of the notification, refund of input service tax is allowed, if no Cenvat credit of service tax paid on specified services used for export has been taken. The findings of the lower court below are that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed. 4.3.2 The ld. counsel states that they had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is available in the appeal paper book, stating that they have not availed Cenvat credit during the period in question. The ld. counsel also states that the appellant was availing Central Excise Exemption under the provisions of Notification No. 30/2004 CE under which they were entitled to clear their goods without Central Excise duty, subject to the condition that they do not take Cenvat credit. The ld. counsel stated that the benefit of said Notification No. 30/2004 CE have never been disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, states that this ground of rejection is not tenable. 4.3.3 Accordingly, we find, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable for allowing the refund of CHA Services received. 4.7.1 The next ground of objection is regarding Handling of export containers within the port. M/s Global Container Logistics other 3 parties provided services of handling of export containers within the port. However, the service providers were registered as CHA. Secondly, the service providers were not authorized by the port. Hence refund is not admissible under category of port services . 4.7.2 The learned counsel states that Services provided within the port for export of goods, are covered at Sl. No.(2) of the table, without any conditions. Further, he states that the registration of service providers in a different category (CHA) is not material for grant of refund in the eligible category. 4.7.3 Accordingly, we allow this ground dismiss objection of Revenue. 4.8.1 The next ground of rejection, which is in Appeal No. ST/534/2010 is with respect to C F Agent Services on the ground that the said service was notified by way of amendment with effect from 07/12/2008. Since all the bills of the C F Agents were issued prior to the said date, no refund of Service tax was held payable. 4.8.2 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
