9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. At the same time Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent Revenue could not produce the required documents before the Bench to ascertain as to what extent co-relation can be made and whether any liberal view can be taken in these proceedings in view of C.B.E. C. Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T. dated 19-1-2010. So far as admissibility of Service tax paid on GTA Services is concerned, it is observed that similar refunds were allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Jumbo Mining Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad [ 2012 (7) TMI 739 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] Refund allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No.77876 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75577/2022 - Dated:- 6-12-2022 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mrs. Mita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication must be strictly complied with for availing the benefits. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that in case of bulk cargo, the goods are to be aggregated at the port premises even before the shipping documents are prepared. The export invoices are prepared only after the Iron Ore Fines are loaded on to the vessel as per the contractual terms and conditions, factors in quality, size, etc. which are variable. She strongly relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jumbo Mining Ltd. vs. CCE 2012 (26) STR 525 (Tri-Bang) wherein it was held that compliance of condition No. 11 of Notification No. 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008 should be ascertained by broadly correlating the evidence of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 6-10-2007. As per Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. certain co-relations are required to be made before sanctioning the refund claims. It is observed from C.B.E. C. Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T. dated 19-1-2010 that exporters were facing certain difficulties in relation to one to one co-relation between input services and the exports made. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Appellant brings to the notice of the Bench para 3.2.1 of C.B.E. C. Circular dated 19-1-2010 to argue that self-certification of the exporter or a Chartered Accountant if given is sufficient to sanction refund. In para 6.2 of this Circular, C.B.E. C. has clarified that only a broad co-relation of input services and Service Tax paid is required to be made wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by broadly correlating the evidence relating to transport and service tax paid on such transport charges and the quantity exported. As regards the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant, ignoring procedural violation while granting refund in respect of exports can be applied to the facts of present case as well. 7. In view of the above, the orders of the authorities below are set aside insofar as the same relating to denial of refunds to the extent mentioned above and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing the appellants. 9. C.B.E. C. in Para 3.2.1 of Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T. dated 19-1-2010 also clarified as follows on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
