Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Shri K.D. Dholkia, ... on 1 June, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/191 of 2010 Arising out of : OIA No. 441/2009(Ahd-II)CE/CMC/Commr(A)/Ahd Dated 30.12.2009 Passed by : Commr. (Appeals) C. Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad For approval and signature : Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindaran, 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? 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 Appellant (s) : M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited Represented by : Shri K.D. Dholkia, Auth. representative Respondent (s) : Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad
Represented by : Shri S.K. Mall, AR CORAM :
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindaran, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 01.06.2012 ORDER No. _____________ /WZB/AHD/2012 Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindaran;
This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. 441/2009(Ahd-II) E/CMC/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 30.12.2009.
2. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding refund claim of the service tax paid on the input services i.e. Courier Services and Transportation services utilised by the appellant for export of the goods. Both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on these two services only on the ground that the appellant has not provided the original or self attested copies of shipping bills, courier bills, bills of lading, MRs of invoices indicating actual export of the goods.
3. Learned representative of the appellant submits that they have filed the acceptance of proof of export with the lower authorities which itself is an indicator that the goods have been exported. It is his submission that in any case, they have the entire documents with them to justify their claim that the goods have been exported.
4. After considering the submissions made by both the sides I find that in this case that factual matrix of production of the documents as indicated hereinabove needs to be verified. If the appellant is having the documents in his custody, the same can be produced in original or self attested copies before the lower authorities, to justify the refund claims. Appellant is also directed to show the linkage of the goods which are being exported by them with documents.
5. I find that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority by appreciating the documents which will be produced by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice. Since the issue involved in this case is of 2001, it would be appreciated if the adjudicating authority takes up the matter for disposal not later than two months from the production of this order by the assessee.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (M.V. Ravindaran) Member (Judicial) .KL 3 Appeal No.ST/191 of 2010