SRF LTD. Vs. C.C.E.
LAWS(CE)-2015-9-5
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 11,2015

Srf Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER V/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MILLS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI.,J. - (1.)The appellants are aggrieved by rejection of refund claim on the ground that the documents issued in respect of services relating to activities at the port of export have not been issued by the port or any person authorized by the port and that the documents being debit notes, refund is not admissible. The issue in all the above appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are as under :
"2.1 The appellant filed refund claims for the periods January 2008 to March 2008, April 2008 to June 2008, and July 2008 to September 2008 under Notification No. dated 06.10.2007 (hereafter referred to as Notification No.). The refund claim was in respect of services such as Terminal Handling Charges, Bill of Lading charges etc, availed for export of goods. After adjudication the refund claim was rejected vide order dated 31/10/2008 on two grounds;

a) that appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to show that such services are provided by port or persons authorized by port and

b) that debit notes issued by service providers are not proper documents in terms of rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In appeal, this view was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal."

(3.)The case of the appellant is that the impugned services are covered under the scope of Notification No. for the purposes of exemption by way of refund. As per the notification taxable services specified in Column (3) of the Schedule are exempted from payment of tax subject to fulfillment of conditions stated in corresponding entry in Column (4) of the Schedule, provided they are received and used by the exporter for export of goods. The specified services stated in Serial No. 2 of the notification refer to services used for export of goods. There is no condition attached to these services in Column (4). It is the contention of the counsel that the authorities below have rejected the claim giving a go by to the plain and literal interpretation of the notification. The relevant notification for the purposes of the appellant's case being notification No. , the impugned services need not answer the description of specific sub clause of Sec. 65(105). Further as per Board's Circular No. 112/6/2009 -ST dated 12/03/2009 the Board has clarified that regardless of classification of service by the service provider, the refund must be granted if it is otherwise in order.
;


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