ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND S.T.
LAWS(CE)-2015-4-2
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 10,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H.K. Thakur, Member (T) - (1.)THIS appeal has been filled by appellant against Order -in -Appeal No. CCEA SRT - 1/SSP 350/2012 -13 Dated 14.02.2013 under which the Order of the Adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 9,33,373/ - was upheld. The appeal was rejected on the ground that appellant was not eligible to exemption vide Notification No. dated 07.7.2009 and that condition of Notification No. dated 03.3.2009 was not fulfilled.
(2.)MS . Dimple Gohil (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that at the time of receipt of services, appellant had one SEZ unit at Hazira and another DTA unit at Hazira. That when refund of services availed by SEZ unit were made under Notification No. dated 07.7.2009 then both, SEZ unit and the DTA unit merged under the DTA unit of the appellant. That appellant was the rightful claimant, and therefore, refund of duty paid as SEZ was correctly admissible under Notification No. and the condition of Notification No. dated 03.3.2009 were not applicable. Learned Advocate relied upon the case laws of Tata Consultancy Services v. CCE, LTU (Mumbai) - [ : 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri. Mum.)] to argue that minor lapses could be ignored as it is a case of refund of taxes related to exports. Appellant also relied upon, a liberal view to be taken as per CBEC Circular No. dated 19.01.2010.
Sh. S.K. Shukla (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the order passed by the first appellate authority and argued that appellant was eligible to refund of export linked taxes only under Notification No. dated 03.03.2009.

(3.)HEARD both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceeding is whether appellant is eligible to refund by way of exemption under Notification No. dated 07.7.2009 as amended by Notification No. dated 30.9.2009. This exemption is admissible to the exporters of goods with respect to specified services received and used by the appellant for export of goods. It is observed from the case records that services were received by the SEZ unit of the appellant under invoice dated 30.01.2010 dated 31.12.2009 when the Services for transport of export of goods through national waterways inland water and Coastal Shipping were provided by M/s. Essar Logistics Limited. The said service stand included at Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. dated 07.7.2009 as per Notification No. dated 30.9.2009. Since the appellant had paid the duty, no reasoning has been given by the first appellate authority as to why refund under Notification No. , as amended, will not be admissible. The case law of Tata Consultancy Services v. CCE LTU Mumbai [ : 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri. Mum.)] and CBEC Circular No. dated 19.1.2010 relied upon by the appellant also convey that a liberal view should be taken in sanctioning of export related refunds in order to encourage exports and to provide Zero Tax export of goods and services. It is not denied by the Revenue that both the SEZ unit and the DTA unit were Later merged and the appellant therefore, become rightful claimant of the refund of Services availed by the SEZ unit of the appellant. Appellant can not be asked to fulfill the condition of Notification No. dated 03.3.2009 which he has not claimed. In view of the above observations, appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.