Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jeans Knit (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 16 January, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20040-20043 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/29177/2013, E/Stay/29178/2013, E/Stay/29179/2013, E/Stay/29181/2013 in E/28484/2013-SM, E/28485/2013-SM, E/28486/2013-SM, E/28487/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/28484/2013-SM, E/28485/2013-SM, E/28486/2013-SM, E/28487/2013-SM [Arising out of Order in Appeal 454-457/2013 dated 25/09/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.] Jeans Knit (p) Ltd No.21 E-2, II Phase, Peenya Industrial Estate, BANGALORE - 560058 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs - Bangalore-ii PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Ashok A. Deshpande, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR & CHANDER KUMAR, ADVOCATES 504, 4TH FLOOR, OXFORD TOWERS, 139, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 017 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 16/01/2014 Date of Decision: 16/01/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY In all the four appeals and the stay applications, the issue involved is same and only the period involved is different and therefore, all the four stay applications and appeals are taken up together for disposal. Since the issue involved falls within a narrow compass, both sides agree that the matter can be finally decided at this stage itself. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeals are taken up for final decision at this stage itself.
2. The appellants filed four refund claims under Notification No.17/2009. This Notification provides for exemption by way of refund of the service tax paid for the services specified in the Notification availed for export of goods. The conditions which are required to be fulfilled for obtaining refund are also specified therein. The appellants have claimed refund in respect of only two services viz., Custom House Agent (CHA) and Clearing and Forwarding Agent (C & F). On going through the order-in-appeal, it is seen that the Commissioner (A) has taken a view that appellants are not eligible for refund on the ground that the invoices issued by the service receiver do not contain the details of export invoice number and date.
3. Heard both the sides. The learned advocate submits that he has produced sample invoices and the invoices contain all the details. Further, he draws my attention to the fact that the original adjudicating authority had made specific observation that the details such as the shipping bill number, description of the goods were written by hand but there is no specific requirement that the same cannot be written by hand. He had also made categorical observation that all the details which are required for correlating of the export consignment were available in the invoices issued by the service receiver. On the contrary, while deciding the appeals filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (A) has simply made a bland observation that the invoice does not contain the export invoice number and date. On going through the orders-in-appeals, I find that these observations are not backed by giving the invoice number and date which the Commissioner (A) has verified, which would enable me to decide whether the observations of the Commissioner (A) is correct. In the absence of the details of verification, the adverse observations made against the appellant by the Commissioner (A) are unacceptable. The only course available to me is to verify the sample invoice produced before me and look at the observations of the original adjudicating authority. I verified one sample invoice in the case of appeal No. E/28487/2013 and the sample invoice number is SEMAAS1052627 issued by Expro Freight dated 16.3.2010. I find that this invoice contains all the details which are required as per the Notification No.17/2009. This verification done by me and coupled with the observations of the original adjudicating authority which are quite detailed and which show that he has conducted the necessary verification, can lead to only one conclusion that the appellant is eligible for the refund claims filed by them.
4. Accordingly, all the four appeals which involve refund claims for the period from January to March, 2010; April to June 2010; July to September, 2010; and January to March, 2011 are admissible. Accordingly, all the four appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2