9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant (s) Shri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant assessee is engaged in the business of trading of minerals, metals and energy products in India as well as export of such goods. For the purpose of export of goods the appellant has availed various taxable services on payment of Service Tax. Claim for rebate of service tax amounting to ₹ 2,48,482/- paid on the specified taxable services during the period from 06.08.2014 to 30.12.2014 was submitted on 05.08.2015 under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2016 was issued alleging that the rebate claim amounting to ₹ 1,09,850/- is liable for rejection owing to certain discrepancies. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 1,38,632/- and rejected the amount of ₹ 1,09,850/-, after making following discussions and findings: Discussion Findings I have carefully gone through the claim for refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of the said goods along with all the documents furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 is less than twenty percent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 of the said notification. Therefore, claim amount involving ₹ 1,05,059/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Fifty Nine) only, as detailed in Table-II Sl.No.1,2 3 (Col.No.8), is not admissible for refund as it does not fulfill the condition in terms of para 1(c ) of the said notification. VIII. that regarding eligibility of the input services provided by M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. involving ₹ 4,648/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty Eight) only, as detailed in Table-II Sl.No.4,5,6 7 (Col.No.8), the same were rendered for inspecting the said goods , i.e. goods exported being excisable goods well within the place of manufacture as evident from the inspection certificate. As a result, it does not qualify as Specified Services in terms of Para (a), clause (A)(i) of the said notification. Hence, the said amount, i.e. ₹ 4,648/- is not admissible for refund. IX. that an input service invoice of M/s. Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. bearing no.0G-15-2401- 1011-000008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The service provided by the input service providers M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. does not fall under specified services as per the Notification No.41/2012-ST(supra) since the service has not been used beyond the place of removal 1203 Inadmissible for refund 6. 6852219 dt. 26.12.14 The service provided by the input service providers M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. does not fall under specified services as per the Notification No.41/2012-ST(supra) since the service has not been used beyond the place of removal 645 Inadmissible for refund 7. 6863903 6914649 dt.26.12.14 29.12.14 The service provided by the input service providers M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. does not fall under specified services as per the Notification No.41/2012-ST(supra) since the service has not been used beyond the place of removal 2406 Inadmissible for refund Total 109707 Inadmissible a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicated above and the same needs to be recovered with interest. 7. The other grounds taken in the appeal are that rebate claim in respect of each shipping bill in an application is a separate claim and the requirement of certificate on the documents enclosed with Form A-1 in terms of clause (h) and clause (i) of Paragraph 3 of the Notification is required to be fulfilled with reference to each shipping bill. It is also contended that in respect of two shipping bills appearing in serial numbers 1 and 2, the rebate claimed against those two shipping bills involving service tax of ₹ 51,167/- is more than 0.50% of the FOB value of the export goods. Therefore, the certificate should have been signed by the statutory auditor signing annual report for the purpose of Income Tax Act or Companies Act. For non-compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the refund of ₹ 51,167/- is not admissible. 8. I have given a careful look at the contents of the said Notification and the relevant part of the same is reproduced below for the sake of better understanding and clarity in the manner : (3) the rebate shall be claimed in the following manner, namely :- (a) reba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter is registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textiles, Form A-1 shall be submitted along with relevant invoice, bill or challan, or any other document for each specified service, in original, issued in the name of the exporter, evidencing payment for the specified service used for export of the said goods and the service tax paid thereon, certified in the manner specified in sub-clauses (A) and (B) : (A) if the exporter is a proprietorship concern or partnership firm, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be self-certified by the exporter and if the exporter is a limited company, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be certified by the person authorised by the Board of Directors; (B) the documents enclosed with the claim shall also contain a certificate from the exporter or the person authorised by the Board of Directors, to the effect that specified service to which the document pertains has been received, the service tax payable thereon has been paid and the specified service has been used for export of the said goods under the shipping bill number; (i) where the total amount of rebate sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedure specified in paragraph 2 . I find that in terms of Para 3, a claim may contain one shipping bill or it may contain more than 1 shipping bill. No restriction has been imposed as to the number of shipping bills to be covered in a claim. The only requirement is that details of shipping bill vis- -vis details of goods exported and details of specified services used for export of goods have to be furnished. I find that in the Form A-1, details of shipping bill/bill of export, details of goods exported, details of specified services used for export of goods, documents evidencing payment of service tax and total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate have to be furnished. Again, under column total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate as a percentage of FOB value in shipping bill has to be shown. Therefore, from the Form A-1 and its table it is clear that claim is not shipping bill wise but only details have to be furnished separately for each shipping bill. Nowhere in the Paragraph 3 of the Notification, it is stated that rebate claim has to be filed shipping bill wise. Further, the total amount of service tax paid which is claimed as rebate has to be shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
