9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shipping bills. There is no dispute that these charges were paid by the appellant for export of goods. The non-production of lorry receipts is only a procedural infraction for which the substantive right of refund claim cannot be rejected. In the appellant's own case, the Commissioner (Appeals) for a different period has allowed the refund claim observing that the non-production of lorry receipt is a procedural infraction and that when the appellant as furnished Charted Accountant certificate, the same has to be accepted. The department cannot take a different view in similar situation of the same appellant for a different period. The rejection of refund claim on procedural grounds cannot be justified - the appellant is eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions (1) (2) (3) (4) 6. (zzp) (i) Service provided for transport of said goods from the inland container depot to the port of export; (ii) Service provided to an exporter in relation to transport of export goods directly from the place of removal, to inland container depot or port or airport, as the case may be, from where the goods are exported. (i) Exporter shall certify that the benefit of exemption provided vide notification number 18/2009-S.T. has not been claimed; and (ii) details, those are specified in the invoice of exporter relating to export goods, are specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been denied on a procedural aspect of not producing the lorry receipts. It is submitted that in the appellant's own case for an earlier period, the Commissioner (Appeals) on identical issue had held that the infraction being procedural in nature, the refund claim cannot be rejected. 6. Ld. A.R Sri M. Ambe appeared and argued for the Department. The condition of the notification was asserted by the Ld. A.R to argue that as the lorry receipts have not been produced by the appellant, refund has been rightly rejected. The findings by the original authority was reiterated by the Ld.A.R. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of refund claim by the authorities below for the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
