Non-mention of IEC number on courier invoice shall be obstacle in claiming refund under notification no. 17/2009-S.T.

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1939

Case:- MAGSONS EXPOERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI

Citation:-2013(32) S.T.R. 222 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-This is an appeal filed by M/s Mangsons Export (herein referred to as the appellant) against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/DE/ST/D-II/2012, dated 14-3-2012.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of ready-made garment and is availing benefit of specified services defined under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009. Appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,94,033/- for the quarter April, 2010 to June, 2010 in terms of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009. Assistant Commissioner vide his order in-original dated 29-6-2011 rejected their claim to the extent of Rs. 1,35,634/-. Appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order allowed their appeal in respect of CHA service, Clearing and Forwarding service, Technical Service but rejected their appeal in respect of Courier Agency service. Appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order.

Appellant Contentions:-The appellant submits that their appeal is rejected on the ground of non-mentioning of I.E.C. code on Courier Agency Invoice. He submits that they have submitted courier invoice, commercial invoices and Shipping Bill for export along with refund claim and I.E.C. code is mentioned in the Shipping Bill. Lower authorities did not corelate the I.E.C. code with the documents and rejected their case on technical ground only.

Respondent Contentions:-The D.R. submits that as per Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. in respect of Courier service, I.E.C. code is required to be mentioned on Courier invoices which was not done in this case and so the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected their appeal.

Reasoning of Judgment:- After hearing both sides, we find that refund is claimed by the appellant under provisions of Notification No. 17/2009-ST., dated 7-7-2009. Courier Agency service is specified at SI. No. 10 of the table provided in the Notification. Exemption is available subject to the condition that receipt issued by Courier Agency shall specify the import-export number of exporter. We find this condition is not fulfilled by the appellant. We therefore hold that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected their appeal.

Decision:-Appeal is rejected.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that IEC number shall be mentioned on receipt/invoice issued by Courier Agency otherwise refund of service tax paid on courier agency service shall not available in terms of the notification no. 17/2009-S.T.

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1939

Post a Comment

Query