Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Heritage Impex Worldwide vs Cce, Delhi on 23 May, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
Appeal No. ST/56428/2013-ST(SM)
and
ST/56429 & 56430/2013
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
Yes
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
(Arising out of OIA No. 322, 323 and 324/ST/DLH/2012 dated 30/11/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CE,Delhi-1
Date of hearing/Decision: 23.5.2013
M/s Heritage Impex Worldwide Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-1 Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Tarun Rohatgi, CA Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Verma, DR Coram: Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO.56437-56439/2013 PER: MANMOHAN SINGH M/s Heritage Impex Worldwide, have filed three appeals against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi wherein he upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 63,177/- being untenable in law.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Heritage Impex Worldwide have filed refund claim of Rs.63,177/- on 02.12.2010 for the period of January, 2010 to March, 2010 against the service tax paid by them on account of receiving courier service during the course of export of educational books. The scrutiny of the said refund claim revealed that the receipt issued by the courier agency did not contain the details such as the importer-exporter code number, export invoice number, nature of courier, destination of courier and name and address of the service recipient. It was also noticed that the appellants have not explained as to how the documents relating to the use of courier service to the goods exported fulfilled the conditions prescribed ion Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, and hence the said refund claim of Rs.63,177/- was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order. This order of the Assistant Commissioner has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Shri Tarun Rohatgi, Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they submitted evidence whatever they had regarding export of books but they do not have any shipping bill as the consignment of books had been sent through courier and submits that they should be granted refund claim.
4. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue on the contrary submits that refund claim was scrutinized and subsequently disposed off in accordance with the provisions mentioned at Column No. 3 of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 07.7.2009 under which the claim of refund of Rs.63,177/- was rejected inter-alia on the grounds that the appellants failed to prove that the services were used for the export of goods and also that the documents furnished by them were not sufficient to prove that the appellants have fulfilled the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 17/2009-STdated 07.7.2009.
5. Heard both sides and perusal the records.
6. I also find that this issue came up for consideration during the last hearing on 26.04.2013 but due to paucity of time it could not be concluded. I remember that the direction was issued to Mr.Rohatgi to segregate claim including time bar claim and to ld.DR to sit together and prepare one information chart. However that chart has not been prepared leaving the issue unresolved.
7. LD.DR prays that due to heavy work load at his level he is not able to sit with the CA as verification is voluminous. He suggested that the matter may be sent back to the original adjudicating authority with the direction that the documents which were subjected to verification of the adjudicating authority must contain details regarding to IEC code number, invoice no. and details of receipt of foreign currency. Ld.CA was directed to prepare information chart incorporating above elements and submit it before the adjudicating authority who will look into the revised information and re-look at the contentions raised by chartered Accountant.
8. In view of this, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority, who will complete the verification process within the three months from the receipt of this order. Ld.CA is directed to co-operate with the department and provide necessary information to the department within three months of this order. Otherwise the case will be decided ex-parte by the adjudicating authority.
9. These 3 appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court) (MANMOHAN SINGH) TECHNICAL MEMBER mk 3 3