Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Natural Slate & Sandstone Exports Pvt. ... vs C.C.E., Jaipur I on 22 July, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/pronouncement: 22.7.2016 Service Tax Appeal No.178 & 264 of 2010 Arising out of the order in appeal No.171 (DK)ST/JPR-I/2009 dated 6.11.2009 and 332 (DK)ST/JPR-I/2009 dated 17.11.2009 passed by Commissioner of (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur I. For Approval and Signature: Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 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 Natural Slate & Sandstone Exports Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I . Respondent
Present Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocates for the appellants Present Shri Raj Kumar Manjhi, A.R. for Revenue Coram: Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Final Order No.52541 52542/2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
There are two appeals dealing with refund under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. The appellants are aggrieved by the denial of refund in respect of services received inside the port classified under Business Support Service and denial of refund of service tax paid on GTA services for transporting goods from ICD to Port.
2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. Regarding eligibility of refund for service tax paid on services received inside the port, we find that based on the Board clarification dated 12.3.2009 and also as per the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Tribunal , it is now well settled that such claim cannot be denied on the ground that service provider was registered under different category or there is no evidence authorizing for providing such services b the port authorities. In S.R.F. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Jaipur I 2015 TIOL-2241 CESTAT DEL and in Shivam Exports and others vs. C.C.E., Jaipur 2016 TIOL 376 CESTA DEL, it has been held that there is no dispute that the services are with reference to export of goods rendered inside the port, the claim cannot be denied on the ground that tax has been paid under different classification by the provider of service. The Board also clarified that there is no requirement of verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. The procedure violated by the service provider cannot be held against the claimant of refund. Similarly , with reference to service tax paid on GTA services, we find that such services were provided for transportation of export goods from ICD to port. The claim was rejected on the ground that supporting invoices were not submitted along with claim. The appellant claimed that they have submitted all the documents as soon as they were received.
3. In view of the above discussion, we find that denial of refund on these two issues is not justified and accordingly set aside the impugned orders. We direct the original authority to process the claim after due verification of supporting evidence submitted by the appellants. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member scd/