Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Go Go International Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 10 October, 2025
E/23155,23338/2014
E/20130/2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 3
Central Excise Appeal No. 23155 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 378/2014-CE dated 30.06.2014
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I),
Bangalore.)
M/s. Go Go International Pvt.
Ltd., Appellant(s)
No.6, KHB Industrial Area,
2nd Cross, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central
Excise, Bangalore II
Commissionerate,
Central Revenue Building, Respondent(s)
PB No. 5400, Queen's Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
With Central Excise Appeal No. 23338 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 436/2011-CE dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.) M/s. Go Go International Pvt.
Ltd., No.6, KHB Industrial Area, Appellant(s) 2nd Cross, Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560 064.
VERSUS The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore II Commissionerate, Central Revenue Building, Respondent(s) PB No. 5400, Queen's Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
And Central Excise Appeal No. 20130 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 626/2014-CE dated 24.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.) Page 1 of 4 E/23155,23338/2014 E/20130/2015 M/s. Go Go International Pvt.
Ltd., Appellant(s)
No.6, KHB Industrial Area,
2nd Cross, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central
Excise, Bangalore II
Commissionerate,
Central Revenue Building, Respondent(s)
PB No. 5400, Queen's Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
APPEARANCE:
None for the Appellant
Ms. Arpitha S., Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Final Order No. 21604-21606 /2025 DATE OF HEARING: 10.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 10.10.2025 DR. D.M. MISRA None present for the appellant. Through their written communication dated 09.06.2025, the appellant requested to dispose off the appeals on the basis of available records as the advocate appearing for the appellant is no more.
2. These three appeals are filed against respective Orders-in- Appeal since involving refund of service tax paid on various services relating to export of goods, are taken up together for hearing and disposal.
3. In Appeal No. E/23155/2014 and Appeal No. 20130/2015, the appellant had filed a refund claim for refund of the service tax paid in relation to transport of goods for export from their factory gate to the Port of Export for the period from 07.07.2009 to 30.06.2012. The refund claim was filed on 10.10.2012 for the amount of service tax paid Rs.3,05,527/- on 19.07.2012 Page 2 of 4 E/23155,23338/2014 E/20130/2015 pursuant to the audit objection raised. A show-cause notice was issued on 07.01.2013 proposing to reject their refund claim on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation of one year prescribed under Notification No.17/2009 ST dated 07.07.2009. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim. The appellant in their grounds has submitted that initially they have not paid service tax on transportation of goods from their factory to the Port of Export on the belief that the transportation in relation to export of goods is exempted. However, on being pointed out by the Internal Audit team, they paid service tax applicable and later claimed refund within 3 months from the date of payment of the service tax. The authorities below rejected the refund claim solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Notification No. 17/2009 ST dated 07.07.2009. I do not find substance in the observation of the authorities below inasmuch as the appellant had paid the service tax amount on 19.07.2012 pursuant to the objection of the Internal Audit about applicability of service tax on transportation of goods for export and after payment of the service tax immediately claimed refund on 10.10.2012 i.e. within 3 months from the date of payment of the service tax, albeit referring to the provision of Notification No. 17/2009 ST dated 07.07.2009, therefore, the refund claim is filed within the prescribed time limit and hence admissible.
4. In appeal No.E/23338/2014, the appellant had filed refund claim for refund of service tax of Rs.16,07,124/- paid on various services including courier agency service, for the period from January 2011 to August 2011. The adjudicating authority, out of the said refund claim, sanctioned an amount of Rs.13,15,865/- and rejected Rs.2,37,689/- relating to service tax paid on Courier Agency Services observing that the conditions of the Notification No. 17/2009 ST dated 07.07.2009 were not followed, i.e. the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) & Export Invoice Number are not mentioned in relevant invoices. The said Page 3 of 4 E/23155,23338/2014 E/20130/2015 rejection was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Rebutting the observation of the authorities below, it is submitted that they have produced all documents after completing all the formalities in the relevant provisions before the adjudicating authority including the conditions indicated at Sl.No.10 of the table mentioned under the Notification No. 17/2009 ST dated 07.07.2009. Referring to the Board Circular DOF No. 334/13/2009 TRU dated 06.07.2009, they have submitted that substantial claim of refund cannot be denied on minor procedural violations once the services are used in relation to export services. In support, they referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (23) S.T.T. 475 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and Meghachem Industries Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad [2011 (23) S.T.R. 472 (Tri. - Ahmd)]. From the records produced by the appellant with their appeal memorandum, it is noticed that they have cured all the defects/deficits pointed out by the Department in the relevant invoices like not mentioning the IEC Code etc. and for such initial minor infractions, substantial benefit cannot be denied, which rectified subsequently, refund cannot be denied. Therefore, the appellant are eligible for the refund of service tax paid on Courier Agency Services of Rs.2,37,689/- in appeal No.E/23338/2014 and Rs.16,992/- in appeal No.E/20130/2015.
5. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and all the three appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 10.10.2025.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) GB/Raja Page 4 of 4