Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vista Film Packaging vs Cce Thane I on 7 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. ST/101, 102, 103/11 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SB/240-242/Th-I/10 dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Vista Film Packaging
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Thane I
Respondent
Appearance Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate For appellants Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 07.03.2014 Date of Decision : 07.03.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order for rejecting their refund claim.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are an exporter. During the course of export, they availed certain services like courier service, CHA service and GTA service. The appellants have filed a refund claim for Rs.1,13,933/- on account of service tax paid by them against the export goods. The adjudicating authority rejected their refund claim on the premise that the appellants have not produced certain invoices. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order on the premise that all the services availed by the appellants although being exporter but not complied with the conditions of Notification No.41/2007 therefore they are not entitled for refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before me.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. 2010-TIOL-1639-CESTAT-AHM.
4. On the other hand the learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellants have received the services from the service provider being an exporter. The decision in the case of Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal held that Notification 41/07-ST provides exemption by way of refund from specified taxable services used for export of goods. Granting refund to exports, on taxable services that he receives and uses for export do not require verification of registration certificate of supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted in such cases, if otherwise in order. The procedural violations by the service provider need to be dealt separately, independent of the process of refund. Admittedly, in this case there is no dispute that the appellants have received the services for export of their goods. Therefore, in the light of the decision in the case of Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and as per the Notification 41/2007-ST the appellants are entitled for refund. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3