9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded. A SCN dated 12.09.2008 was issued to the appellants wherein, interalia, appellants were asked to show cause in respect of the following apparent short comings:- a) Non production of documents evidencing export of goods as envisaged under para (f) of the Notification. b) Non production of documents to establish that the services have been used in respect of export of goods. c) Part of the claimed amount off Rs. 10,23,976/- is related to export clearances made prior to 01.04.2008 and appears to be time barred. d) In respect of claim of refund of service tax paid on port services and commission agent, the service providers are not registered for the specified services. The original adjudicating authority vide an order dated 24.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for refund for such services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. c) Part of the refund claim of around Rs. 3,00,000/- has been rejected on the ground that the appellant had not produced relevant documents as envisaged in the Notification viz., contract or agreement or any other document requiring the commission agent located outside India to provide services to the exporter in relation to sale of goods outside India. However, Ld. Advocate submits that the appellant is not pressing this part of the demand. d) Around Rs. 78,000/- claimed as refund, relating to Courier services has been rejected on the ground that the invoices do not specify IEC code. The Ld. Advocate relies upon the case law Antak Agencies (International) Vs. CCE, Noid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or such co-relation were available on the courier invoices which is not being the case here. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. (i) On the issue of invoices issued by M/s. Natvar Parekh Industries relating to port services, we find that the matter is fully covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra), the relevant portion of which is reproduced for ready reference:- "8. The above clarification throws light on difficulties faced by exporters to produce documents in accordance with Section 65(105)(zn) as there is no procedure of issuing permission letters or authorization to such service providers. The Board in its circular dated 12-3-2009 has clarified that granting refund does not require the ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not interfere with the impugned order on that score. So ordered. iii) On the issue of the exact period of refund, we find there is some confusion. The SCN produced by the appellant in para 4 (iii) indicates that the amount of Rs. 10,23,976/- is related to export clearances made prior to 01.04.2008. However, that aspect is not forthcoming from the annexure to the SCN. We therefore deem it fit to remand this issue to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of this issue as per law, laid in provisions, notification, Circular and case laws applicable thereon. iv) So also, with regard to the portion of the refund claim pertaining to courier services, the matter is being remanded to enable the appellants to produce all the related inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
