Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Magsons Exports vs C.S.T., Delhi on 4 April, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Court No. III
ST/747/2012-[DB]
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.69/S.Tax/D-II/2012, dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi)
Date of Hearing: 04.04.2013
Honble Shri, Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Shri, Sahab Singh, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
The order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : Yes
The CESTAT (Procedure) rules, 1982 for
Publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their lordships wish to see the fair : Seen
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Department Authorities?
M/s. Magsons Exports Appellant
Vs
C.S.T., Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for the Appellant: Shri, M.S. Bhatia, Adv.,
Appeared for the Respondent: Shri, Govind Dixit, A.R,
Coram: Honble Shri, Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Shri, Sahab Singh, Technical Member
Final ORDER No. 55999/2013
Per Sahab Singh:
This is an appeal filed by M/s Magsons Export (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against order in appeal No. 69/DE/ST/D-II/2012 dated 14.03.2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer & exporter of readymade garments and is availing benefit of specified services defined under notification No. 17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009. Appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,94,033/-for the quarter April 2010 to June 2010 in terms of notification No. 17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009. Assistant Commissioner vide his order in original dated 29.06.2011 rejected their claim to the extent of Rs. 1,35,634/- . Appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who vide impugned order allowed their appeal in respect of CHA service, Clearing and Forwarding service, Technical Service but rejected their appeal in respect of Courier Agency service. Appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order.
3. Ld. Advocate for appellant submits that their appeal is rejected on the ground of non-mentioning of I.E.C code on Courier Agency Invoice. He submits that they have submitted courier invoice, commercial invoices and Shipping Bill for export along with refund claim and I.E.C. code is mentioned in the Shipping Bill. Lower authorities did not corelate the I.E.C. code with the documents and rejected their case on technical ground only.
4. Ld. D.R. submits that as per Notification No. 17/09-ST in respect of Courier service, I.E.C. code is required to be mentioned on Courier invoices which was not done in this case Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly rejected their appeal.
5. After hearing both sides, we find that refund is claimed by the appellant under provisions of Notification No. 17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009. Courier Agency service is specified at Sl. No. 10 of the table provided in the Notification. Exemption is available subject to the condition that receipt issued by Courier Agency shall specify the import-export number of exporter. We find this condition is not fulfilled by the appellant. We therefore hold that Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly rejected their appeal.
6. Appeal is rejected.
(JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM) President (Sahab Singh) Member Technical Neha 2