Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hans Raj Mahajan Worldwide vs Cce & St, Jalandhar on 11 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Court No.4
Appeal No.ST/3926/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.190/ST/LDH/2012 dated 10.9.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh-II)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 11.07.2013
Honble Mr.Sahab Singh, 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?
No
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
Hans Raj Mahajan Worldwide Appellant
Vs
CCE & ST, Jalandhar Respondent
Present for the Appellant: None
Present for the Respondent: Shri M.S.Neig, DR
Coram: Honble Mr.Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Final ORDER NO. 56955/2013
PER: SAHAB SINGH
This appeal is filed by M/s. Hans Raj Mahajan Worldwide against the Order-in- Appeal No.190/ST/LDH/2012 dated 10.9.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh-II.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed refund claim of service tax amounting to Rs.45,397/- in terms of Notification No.17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. The refund claim was filed on 31.12.2009. After noticing some defect in the refund claim, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing rejection of refund claim. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority vide order in original No. Ref/ST/23/DC/Jal/2011 dt.4.2.2011 under which an amount of Rs.2,997/- was sanctioned and balance amount of Rs.42,400/- was rejected.
3. The appellant has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal and appellant challenged the impugned order in the present appeal.
4. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Vide their letter dated 18.4.2013, they have intimated that the matter can be decided on merits after going through the grounds taken by them in their memo of appeal.
5. Ld.DR appearing for the Revenue submits that refund was rejected by both the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant did not fulfil the condition of Notification No.17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. As such, the order in appeal is sustainable.
6. I find that the refund was rejected by both the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant did not satisfy the condition specified in eth Notification No.17/2009 dated 7.7.2009. The refund claim relates to an amount of service tax paid on courier services which are specified at Sl.No.10 of the Notification. Against Sl.NO.10, the conditions to be fulfilled by the claimant of refund are (i) the receipt issued by the courier agency shall specify the importer-exporter code (IEC) number of the exporter, export invoice number, nature of courier, destination of the courier including name and address of the recipient of the courier; and (ii) exporter produces documents relating to the use of courier service to export goods.
7. From the facts of the case, it is clear that receipt submitted by the courier agency does not content these details as required under the notification. Therefore, finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the conditions mentioned in the notification were not fulfilled by the appellant, is sustainable and is accordingly upheld. I therefore uphold the order in appeal and reject the appeal.
(dictated & pronounced in the open court) (SAHAB SINGH) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) mk ??
??
??
??
4