Refund of Service Tax on services for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1102

Case: Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v/s Commr of Cus & C. Ex, Nagpur

Citation: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 207 (Tri. Mum)

Issue:- Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST rejected on non-production of documents – matter remanded for verification of documents.

Brief Facts:- Appellant is the manufacture of iron and steel products. Appellant filed a refund claim of service tax in terms of exemption Notification No. 41/2007-ST as amended. The Notification No 41/2007 exempts certain taxable services specified in the schedule received by an exporter and used for export by way of refund prescribing certain conditions therein.

The Asst. Commissioner rejected the refund claim in respect of Port services, Cargo Handling services and Clearing and Forwarding agents’ services. Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected their claim because of the fact that the refund claim was sanctioned on the basis of contents in documents and the contents in documents are not covered by the Notification. In the impugned order, it has been further observed that during the personal hearing, the appellant sought time to present evidence of tax being deposited with the exchequer by the service provider. Instead of providing the said evidence, the appellant produced copy of the circular No. 106/09/2008-ST dated 11.08.2008 with regard to filing of claim for refund of service tax paid.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s Contention:- Appellant has submitted that cargo handling services shown by mistake in refund claim, actually these services are provided by the CONCOR i.e. Inland Container Depot for transportation of goods. The contention was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals)

Respondent’s Contention:- Revenue submits that the appellant has claimed the refund for the services of cargo handling services and clearing and forwarding services which cannot be allowed as per schedule to the Notification.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that the refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal) for non-production of the evidence asked by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the course of personal hearing. The Tribunal held that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to remand back the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority to verify the documents again and to find whether the appellant is entitled to refund claim as per said Notification no. 41/2007-ST.

Decision:- Matter remanded back.

*************

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1102

Post a Comment

Query