TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case for verification of GTA services claim, appellant granted hearing opportunity</h1> <h3>M/s Bonai Industrial Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, BBSR-II</h3> M/s Bonai Industrial Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, BBSR-II - TMI Issues:Refund claim of Service Tax for exported goods under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended; Rejection of refund claims due to missing export invoice numbers in lorry receipts and shipping bills; Interpretation of conditions for availing refund benefits under the Notification; Dispute over whether mentioning export invoice numbers in lorry receipts is a substantive condition.Analysis:The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & S.Tax, BBSR, regarding the refund claim of Service Tax for exported goods. The appellant, an exporter of iron ore fines, had claimed refunds under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended. The adjudicating authority partially allowed the claims but rejected a portion related to GTA services due to missing export invoice numbers in lorry receipts and shipping bills.The appellant contended that despite the missing export invoice numbers in the lorry receipts, all details of export, including invoice numbers, were available and could be correlated with the shipping bills. The appellant argued that the missing invoice numbers were not a substantive condition for availing benefits under the Notification. Reference was made to Supreme Court decisions and Tribunal judgments supporting this interpretation.On the other hand, the Department argued that the conditions in the Notification were mandatory, and all requirements must be satisfied for claiming refunds. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Department emphasized the mandatory nature of the conditions laid down in the Notification.After hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was established that there was no dispute regarding the export of goods or the use of GTA services. The main contention was the absence of export invoice numbers in the lorry receipts and shipping bills. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where missing details were allowed to be provided separately for verification before granting refunds.Considering the similarities with the previous case, the Tribunal remanded the present case to the original authority for verification of the appellant's claim regarding the use of GTA services in exporting goods. The original authority was instructed to establish a link between the lorry receipt, export invoices, and shipping bills before deciding on the refund claim. The appellant was to be granted a reasonable opportunity for a hearing during the denovo adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
