Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Alpine Apparels Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi on 25 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 25.9.2013
Service Tax Appeal No. 55607-55609 of 2013-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 09-10/ST/APPL/DLH-IV/2012 dated 6.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner , Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-IV)
For Approval & signature:
Honble Shri 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?
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
M/s Alpine Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, A.R. - for the respondent Coram : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) F. Order No. 57774-57776/2013 Per Sahab Singh :
These three appeals have been filed by M/s Alpine Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (appellants) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 8-10/ST/APPL/DLH-IV dated 6.11.2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are exporter of the goods and during the course of exports they have received the taxable services rendered by various service provider and paid the service tax leviable thereon. These services are specified in the table annexed to Notification No. 17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. The service specified in the notification are exempt from the service tax when these services are used for export of goods in terms of the Notification No. 17/2009. Appellants filed three different claims amounting to Rs.3,85,196/-, Rs. 3,00,535/ and Rs.1,56,859/- with the supporting documents with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The original authority after getting the verification of the reports, allowed the refund in respect of services other than courier and rejected the refund pertaining to courier services. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected their appeal in respect of courier services. The appellants have filed appeal against the impugned order in appeal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is eligibility of the refund in respect of service tax paid on courier services specified under Section 17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. I find that in the appellants own case in three following orders :-
(I) Final Order No. ST/627/2011 dated 2.12.2011 (II) Final Order No. ST/A/702/2012-Cus dated 9.11.2012 (III) Final Order N0. 1613-1614/2012 dated 15.11.2012 the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee allowing benefit of the notification in respect of courier services. Therefore following the said decisions of this Tribunal, I hold that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable and accordingly order- in- appeal is set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1