Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Maize Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 8 December, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/226/2010 (Arising out of OIA-101/2010/AHD-II/CE/CMC/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 15.03.2010, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad) M/s. Maize Products : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Amal Presh Dave & Shri S. Bissa, Advocates For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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 Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 08.12.2016 ORDER No. A/11788/2016 Dated 08.12.2016 Per : Dr. D.M. Misra;
This is an appeal filed against OIA No. 101/2010/AHD-II/CE/ CMC/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 15.03.2010, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant has filed refund of service tax paid on the services viz. Custom House Agent Services, Goods Transport Agency Services, Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services etc. claiming that the same are used in the export of goods. Initially the refund claim was filed under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority observing that the same is not applicable. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) though observed that the refund claim could be considered as filed under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, however, uphold the rejection on the ground of insufficiency of evidences in establishing the co-relation between the service availed with the export of goods, a necessary condition precedent laid-down under the said notification to be eligible to refund. Aggrieved, by the said observation the present Appeal.
3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that along with Appeal paper book now they had enclosed all the relevant documents by which it could be established that the services have been used in the export of goods on which refund was claimed.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the case may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for scrutiny of these documents.
5. I find that these documents needs to be scrutinised so as to examine the eligibility of refund claim of service tax paid under the aforesaid Notification which were used in the export of goods. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to scrunize the said documents and decide the case as far as practicable within four months from the communication of the Order. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the Appellant. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) ..KL 3