Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sarda Gum & Chemicals (Unit-Ii) vs C.C.E. Jaipur-Ii on 9 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. ST/636, 641, 642, 646/2010-ST(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 396,410,403,409(KKG)ST/JPR-II/2009 dated 18.01.2010, by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
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?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Sarda Gum & Chemicals (Unit-II) .Applicants
Vs.
C.C.E. Jaipur-II .Respondent
Appearance:
None appeared for the Applicants Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 09.08.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 53051-53054/2016-ST(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing the Ld. DR for the Revenue as nobody appeared for the appellant, we find that the appellant who are 100% exporter filed the refund claim of service tax paid on the services so utilized for export of the goods in terms of the notification number 41/2007-ST. The lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that they are not specified services in terms of the said notification.
2. We find that the common services in respect of which the appellants have claimed the refund are terminal handling charges, bill of lading charges and inland haulage services as also clearing and forwarding agent services. All these services have been the subject matter of the one or the other decisions of the Tribunal and stands covered by the said decisions by holding that they are all port services and as such being specified services are covered by the notification in question. Reference can be made to the following decisions:
i. SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur-I 2015-TIOL-2241-CESTAT-DEL ii. Shivan Exports, Mecshot Blasting Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Shree Ram Industries Vs. CCE Jaipur 2016-TIOL-376-CESTAT-DEL iii. Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur vide Final Order No. ST/A/52038/2016 dated 01.06.2016 iv. CCE & ST Visakhapatnam Vs. RAK Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Madurai Vs. Tata Coffee Ltd.
vi. Commissioner Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd.
vii. Shree Ram Gum and Chemicals Vs. CCE Jaipur 2016-TIOL-1717-CESTAT-DEL viii. Suncity Art Exporters & Ors. Vs. CCE Jaipur 2014-TIOL-2319-CESTAT-DEL
3. Ld. DR agrees that the disputed services stands covered in the favour of the assessee by the above referred judgment but submits that C & F services were not specified during the relevant period. However, he agrees that it is not clear as to whether such services were provided by CHA or not. He also submits that there are other issues and the matter be remanded for fresh adjudication.
4. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Suncity Art Exporters & Others vide Final Order No. 54038-54068/2014 dated 16.10.2014, after considering the precedent orders have remanded the matter for fresh decision in the light of the declaration of the law in the above referred cases. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and remand both the matters to the original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision, in the light of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court]
(V.Padmanabhan) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
3
ST/636, 641, 642, 646/2010-ST(DB)