Decided on May 08,2015

T.C. Terrytex Ltd. Appellant
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chandigarh -Ii Respondents


G. Raghuram, J. (President) - (1.)THE appeal is preferred against a concurrent rejection of a claim for refund presented on the basis of Notification No. , dated 7 -7 -2009. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh vide the order dated 14 -2 -2012 allowed refund to the extent of Rs. 7,832/ - while rejecting refund claim to the extent of Rs. 2,04,092/ -. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh -II vide the impugned order dated 28 -2 -2013 rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant herein, concurring with the primary authority. The appellant is a registrant for Service Tax for rendition of transport of goods by road and for business auxiliary service. The appellant is also a manufacturer and exporter of 100% cotton terry towels. It filed refund claim for Rs. 2,11,924/ -, claiming the benefit of Notification No. in respect of Service Tax paid on clearing and forwarding services used in the export of finished goods, exported during October 2010 to December 2010. Notification No. inter alia requires the production of invoices issued by a C & F agent for providing service as clearing and forwarding agent, which should disclose/specify (a) the number and date of shipping bill (b) the description of exported goods and (c) the number and date of the inputs used by the exporter regarding the exported goods apart from other details specified in the Notification. Scrutiny of the refund claim submitted and the documents furnished by the appellant asserted payment of Service Tax in the shape of input/debit notes to certain entities which were considered to be neither the service providers nor were the documents furnished valid documents for claiming the benefits of Notification No. The primary authority therefore rejected refund claim to the extent of Rs. 2,04,092/ -.
(2.)LD . appellate authority concurred with the primary authority and dismissed the appeal after recording a conclusion that the documents submitted failed to establish the claim for refund. Invoice/shipping bills which would establish utilization of the input service for export of goods, were however not furnished. The appellate authority clearly recorded the finding that in the absence of evidence of the nexus between the appellant and the provider of services which were claimed to have been utilized for export, no refund could be granted. The appellate authority further concluded that the appellant failed to submit any proof to establish any nexus between the inputs and the fact of the goods exported and that essential conditions for availment of refund under Notification No. were not fulfilled.
In the light of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, the claim by the appellant reiterated before this Tribunal, that the invoices submitted and that the refund claim contained details of the bills of lading which are essential documents of proof of export setting out the export invoices and container numbers and that photocopies of invoice/debit notes which were filed certified that the specific services were received regarding export of goods and that Service Tax was remitted and these should have been considered as substantial compliance with Notification No. , does not commend acceptance. On the above analysis, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected, but in the circumstances without costs.


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