Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Banswara Syntex Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 2 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Service Tax Appeal No. 958 of 2011
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 142(CB)/ST/JPR-II/2011 dated 28/2/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur ]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. 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?
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. Banswara Syntex Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent Jaipur II
Appearance:
Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing /Decision: 02.11.2016 FINAL ORDER NO . 54775 /2016 Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant, who is a 100% EOU is entitled to refund of Service Tax paid on terminal handling charges as also CHA service and GTA services, received for the purpose of export of their goods, in terms of notification No. 41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007. Both sides agree that the issue is no more res integra and stand decided by the Tribunal in number of cases. Reference can be made to the Tribunals decision in the following cases which are being repeatedly followed by the Tribunal in the other appellants similarly situate.
1. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I [2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri-Del)];
2. M/s. Shivam Exports, M/s. Mecshot Blasting Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2016-TIOL-376-CESTAT-DEL]
3. M/s. Suncity Art Exporters and others [2014-TIOL-2319-CESTAT-DEL)]
4. Vippy Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Indore [2013 (30) STR 238 (Tri-Del)]
5. Faizan Shoes Pvt Ltd vs CST, Chennai [2014 (34) STR 205 (Tri-Chennai)]
6. CCE, Surat vs. ABG Shipyard Ltd.
[2011 (24) STR 620 (Tri-Ahmd)]
2. The appellants have also claimed refund of service tax paid on reverse charge basis in respect of foreign agency service. Same stand denied by the lower authorities on the ground that there is no agreement between the appellant and their foreign agents which is one of the pre-condition for grant of refund. Learned Advocate submits that he is not aware of the factual position and matter may be remanded to ascertain the said fact.
3. Accordingly, we allow the refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and GTA services and for refund of Service Tax paid on foreign agent services. The matter is remanded for fresh decision.
(pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( V. Padmanabhan )
ss Member(Technical)
2