9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue. The case is remanded for detailed examination - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C.M.A.No.690 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2020 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar For the Appellant : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.S.Muthu Venkatraman JUDGMENT DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the learned CESTAT dated 01.05.2018. The limited ground on which the present appeal is pressed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Mr.V.Sundareswaran is as discussed by the learned Tribunal in Paragraph 5(i) of the impugned order. Though the Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has placed reliance on the judgment in Commissioner Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd., 2014 (35) S.T.R.741 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has considered the very same issue and held in favour of the assessee. The said decision squarely covers the issue in the present case the facts being similar. Revenue placed reliance on the decision rendered by CESTAT in Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R.410 (Tri-Del). The refund claim therein was denied as the appellants had availed drawback also in respect of goods exported by them. Facts being different the said case is distinguished from the case in hand. In the event, that part of the impugned order rejecting the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, drawing our attention to Notification No.17 /08-ST, by which the main Notification No.41/07-ST dated 06.10.2007 was amended, submitted that the Assessee M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited had not established that the service provider M/s.Natvar Parikh Industries engaged in Port Services, had provided any specific service to the Assessee M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited, on which the CENVAT / Refund of the service tax was claimed by the Assessee in terms of the said amending Notification dated 01.04.2008. The said amending Notification No.17 dated 01.04.2008, to its relevant extent is quoted below for ready reference. [Notification No.17/2008-S.T., dated 01.04.2008] Exemption to specified taxable services used for export of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority viz., the Commissioner of Appeals, in his order dated 24.10.2008 with regard to the said refund claim of the Assessee of ₹ 74,79,959/- had given the following findings. The service provider, M/s.Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd., having Registration No.AAACN5361LCH002 (Custom House Agent) have issued their bills M/s.HMIL indicating the services. The service tax seems to have been collected from the exporter claimant only in their capacity of providing Custom House Agent service. As required evidence was not made available to conclude that M/s.Natwar Parikh Industries Ltd., are the persons authorised by the port to provide post services and that tax was actually paid on port service, I am of the view that M/s.H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have any relation to the export of goods exported by the Assessee M/s.Hyndai Motor India Limited, the conditions in the Notification dated 01.04.2008 were not satisfied and therefore, the learned Tribunal has misapplied the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd -vs- CCE, Jaipur [2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri-Del)] cited supra, in which the issue was with regard to the registration of the service providers as Port Service Providers. 6. Therefore, prima facie we are satisfied that the learned Tribunal has not decided the real issue arising in the matter as is sought to be canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 7. In these circumstances, we are left with no other option but to remand the case back to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
