9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants had filed the applications under Notification Nos. 52/2011-S.T. dated 30.12.2011 and 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012, claiming refund of service tax paid on the input services. The refund applications pertain to the taxable services viz., storage and warehousing service, courier service, insurance service etc. During scrutiny of the refund applications, the jurisdictional service tax authorities observed that storage and warehousing service was used for storage of raw materials, semi-finished goods and not for exportation of the goods; with regard to courier service, it was observed that the condition mentioned in serial No.10 (f) of the said notification has not been fulfilled by the appellants inasmuch as IEC/IFSC code, natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65 of the Finance Act, 1994; description of specified taxable services and the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of the refund benefit. The disputed services involved in the present case are itemized in serial no. 1, 9 and 10 of the said table. As regards the insurance service is concerned, the appended table has provided that the insurer shall provide the service in relation to insurance of the export goods. With regard to storage and warehousing service, it has been specified that such service should be considered only for the export goods. With regard to courier service, the condition prescribed in the said table was that the receipt issued by the courier agency should specify the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) number of the exporter, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants are the manufacturer of excisable goods and for that purpose, got themselves registered with the Central Excise authorities. Insofar as grant of refund/ rebate of service tax is concerned, the notification dated 29.06.2012 (supra) has provided that the services used beyond the place of removal (i.e., the factory gate, in the case of a manufacturer of excisable goods), should alone be considered and not otherwise. The manner of use/utilisation of the disputed services, as discussed in the respective orders passed by the lower authorities, makes the position amply clear that such use/utilisation are not beyond the place of removal and also the appellants had not submitted adequate documentary evidences to prove the case in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
