Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Jumbo Mining Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 October, 2012
THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, WTC BUILDING, FKCCI COMPLEX,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE
Date of hearing: 15.10.2012
Date of decision: 15.10.2012
Appeal No. ST/1169/2010
(Arising out of order-in-Appeal No.36/2010 (H-II) S.Tax dated 15/04/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad)
For approval and signature
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982?
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities
M/s Jumbo Mining Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Hyderabad Present for the Appellant :None Present for the Respondent :Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) ORDER No______________________ This appeal filed by the assessee is against rejection of certain rebate claims viz (i) claim of Rs. 1,35,802/- being the service tax paid on GTA service used for transportation of goods from factory to the port of export (ii) claim of Rs. 8,499/- being the service tax paid on stockyard rent, both for the period from April to June 2009. There is no representation for the appellant. However, their counsel has filed written submissions with a request for a decision on merits. In those written submissions, it has been stated that the question whether the appellant can claim rebate of the service tax paid on GTA service used for transportation of goods from their factory to the port of export is already covered in their favour by the Tribunals Final Order Nos. 838 & 839/2011 dated 16/12/2011 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 547 & 549/2010 filed by the same assessee. The learned Superintendent (A.R.) has also fairly acknowledged this factual position. On a perusal of the cited Final Order, I find that the goods (Feldspar, Quartz and Fullers earth) for export were transported from the assessees factory to Kakinada port directly and that each export consignment covered by a shipping bill being to the tune of 6000 to 8000 tonnes could not have been transported by a single lorry and the same required to be aggregated at the port premises before the shipping documents were prepared. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that condition No. (iii) attached to Sl. No. 11 in the schedule to Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6/10/2007 as amended by Notification No. 3/2008-ST dated 19/2/2008 could be complied with by a broad correlation of the evidence of transportation with the service tax paid thereon and the quantity exported. In the instant case also, the goods were admittedly transported from the appellants factory directly to Kakinada port. There is no dispute with regard to the quantity of goods cleared from the factory and transported to the port or with regard to the service tax paid on the GTA service used for transportation. The only reason stated by the lower authorities for denying rebate of the service tax paid on the GTA service is that details of the exporters invoice were not specifically mentioned in the lorry receipts. It is not the case of the department that the lorry receipts did not tally with the export documents in respect of other essential particulars. In other words, a broad correlation is found in the instant case of the assessee also. In this view of the matter, it is held that the appellant is entitled to a rebate of Rs. 1,35,802/-.
2. Regarding the rebate claim of Rs. 8,499/-, the written submissions refer to land allotment letter dated 30/7/2007 issued by Kakinada Sea Ports Ltd., to M/s Chandra Shipping and Trading Services. The relevant ground raised in the memorandum of appeal reads thus:-
The learned authority ought to have seen that the Custom House agent is authorized person by the port in respect of the said goods. Such being the factual position, the amounts paid towards rent for keeping the goods in the premises of port area is entitled for refund. The above ground seems to have been reiterated in the written submissions but there is no specific reference to the input service on which rebate is claimed, let alone any nexus between the input service and the export of goods. In the circumstances, the appellant has failed to establish any basis for the rebate claim. The claim of Rs. 8,499/- is, therefore, not admissible to them.
3. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (P. G. CHACKO) Member (Judicial) /pnr/ 3