Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Meerut - I on 19 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2013
ST/57306/2013-ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 15-ST/MRT-I/2013 dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
M/s. Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Meerut - I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Gupta, CA - for the Appellant
Shri M.S. Negi, DR - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
FINAL ORDER NO. 56720/2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal is filed by M/s Forace Polymers Pvt. Ltd. against the Order in Appeal No. 15-ST/MRT-I/2013 dated 22.03.2013.
2. Brief facts of the case that are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of PF Resin, FF Resin and Hardner and are also paying service tax. They filed the refund claim of Rs. 71,447/- on 25.09.2012 under provision of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 along with documents/bills of providers of services used by them in connection with export goods. Under the Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 exemption is to be claimed by the exporter by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of the said goods. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the rejection of refund of Rs. 14,825/- which relates to the transportation charges of the goods. This claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that Rs. 14,825/- was paid by the service provider to the claimant under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and since the Service Tax on the transportation charges is not reflected in the invoice of the service provider, original authority has rejected their refund claim. Appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), who vide the impugned order has rejected their appeal. Appellants preferred this appeal against the impugned order.
3. Heard both sides.
4. I find that under Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 the appellants can claim the refund of service tax paid of transport of goods from place of removal to inland container depot or port or airport. The service is specified in the Notification at S.No. 6 under Section 65 (105) (zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the present case the document submitted by the appellant before the original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeal) do not indicate any amount shown on transportation charges under GTA service. The invoices bills submitted by the various service provider show the various amounts against the various entries mentioned in the invoice but nothing on transportation In absence of any amount shown on the transportation charges against the GTA service, I find no infirmity in the Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and accordingly I up hold the same and reject the appeal.
5. Appeal is rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) Neha 1