9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be authorized by the port - Since the Appellants refund claim was for more than 0.25% of the FOB value of exports, there was no need for self-certification. The conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the certificate is a general open ended certificate is erroneous and not tenable, especially when the notification is silent w.r.t the format in which the certificate has to be submitted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted a certificate to the effect that specified service to which the document pertains has been received by them, the service tax payable thereon has been paid and the specified service has been used for export of goods under the shipping bill number. However no such certificate has been furnished. e) Nothing has been discussed in the OIO regarding the source / origin of movement and manner of procurement of goods being exported. f) The invoice submitted did not contain the relevant particulars required to be furnished for claiming the refund Accordingly, the Revenue filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking to set-aside the Orders in Original to the extent the refund was granted to the claimants. 4. The Ld. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by a port/ persons authorized by the port. The respondents have merely stated in their cross objections that they had submitted all such certificates / licenses granted by specific ports, however, the same were not submitted during the Appellate proceedings. Therefore, the Department objection succeeds. Certificate of Chartered Accountant has been made without referring to any particulars bills/ invoices/ challans The certificates given by the auditor firm seriously lack in complying with the requirement of the condition laid down in para 2 (i) (F) of notification. The basic requirement of the said para was that each such certificate should have been issued with respect to specific bundle of eligible services connected to a partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point regarding non-verification of whether the service provider had claimed exemption or not as required under para 2(a), the Appellants stated as under: * The Comm (A) has erred in shifting the onus to prove that the service provider has claimed any exemption, especially when notification 17/2009 does not require submission of any documentary evidence. * The reference to GTA, where in the service receiver was required to obtain a declaration from service provider of non-claiming of credit of inputs / capital goods is not relevant. This is because in case of GTA, the condition was non-claim of credit while in the current case, the condition is non-claim of exemption. * Had the service providers claimed exemption, they would have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date affixed to it is invalid. Further, the Appellants also stated that the certificate was in reference to the refund claim, which was filed vis-à-vis the export consignment with reference to the shipping bill for which the certificate was issued. That being the case, the conclusion of the LD. Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable. e) W.r.t the point regarding the self - certification not furnished by the Appellants at the time of filing the refund claim, the Appellants stated that in case where the refund amount was more than 0.25% of the FOB value, self - certification was not required as CA Certificate was to be furnished, which has been submitted by the Appellants. f) W.r.t point regarding invoice of service provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Radhu Industries vs. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2016 (41) STR 574 (Delhi Tribunal) relied upon by the Appellants. In view of the amendment to definition of port services, all services provided within the port area are classified as port services Further, there is no such condition prescribed in the notification which requires the service provider to be authorized by the port. However, it is observed by me that in the case of R R Global Enterprises itself, the Hon'ble High Court has held that insignificant requirements like endorsement of applications prescribed merely for orderly conduct of business can be waived off. As is evident from the above discussion, the current set of appeals are arising out of non-compliance of such insignifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
