9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found to be admissible. Mis-match of documents - Held that: - There is a provision of self certification or certification by Chartered Accountant about co-relation and nexus of input services with the exports. It is clear that in present appeals the Revenue had not brought out a specific case of any mis-match in the documents supporting the claims. Refund claim - services provided by port or person authorised by the port - Held that: - There is no dispute that services received by the respondent are falling under category of port services. The tax paid on such services has not been disputed. Hence, it is not open to the Revenue to contest that such tax paid on port services will not be eligible for exemption/ refund in terms of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original authority sanctioning refunds. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred the present appeals. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 3. We note that the main grounds of appeal by the Revenue are :- (a) The Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur is not competent to decide the refund claims. The reliance placed by the lower authorities on the circular dated 12.05.2008 of the Board is not appropriate. The said circular was with reference to Notification No.41/2007-ST, whereas the present claims were filed under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. (b) Service Tax paid on transport of goods from mines to Railway siding is not admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. Transportation of goods by road f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, we note that the objection raised by the Revenue is frivolous and without merit. Admittedly, Notification No.17/2009 is a successor Notification to 41/2007. In fact, the 2009 notification was issued superseding the 2007 notification. The object and the scheme envisaged in these notifications are same. We find no justification in the point raised by the Revenue stating circular issued under Notification No. 41/2007 is not applicable to Notification No.17/2009. 7. Strangely, when the Revenue raises objection regarding jurisdiction, it is not mentioned what will be the correct jurisdiction. The respondent-assessee were registered in Katni Range under the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur who decided the refund claims. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aims. 10. Regarding services provided by port or person authorised by the port it is clear that the respondent assessee submitted bills/ invoices issued by the providers of such service. There is no dispute that services received by the respondent are falling under category of port services. The tax paid on such services has not been disputed. Hence, it is not open to the Revenue to contest that such tax paid on port services will not be eligible for exemption/ refund in terms of Notification No.17/2009-ST. 11. We note all the grounds raised in the present appeals were examined in detail by the first appellate authority himself. We have carefully considered the findings recorded in the impugned order and the grounds of present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
