Place of removal includes mines; CA certificate can substantiate service tax payment and enhanced claims are barred on remand.

Mines qualify as 'place of removal' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for purposes of Notification No. 41/2007-ST because mining amounts to production/manufacture and goods were removed from mine to port, so the removal condition is satisfied and refund may be allowed; a chartered accountant certificate together with agreements, shipping bills and GAR-7 challans establishes payment of service tax on GTA services and non availment of cenvat credit where no specific documentary gaps are identified, so refund is admissible for the original claim; an enhancement based on invoices outside the original claim is not maintainable in the remand and must be filed afresh, so the enhanced claim is rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mines qualify as 'place of removal' for purposes of Notification No. 41/2007-ST (as amended) so as to permit refund of service tax paid on GTA services used for export; (ii) Whether the appellant established payment of service tax on GTA services and non-availment of cenvat credit such that refund is admissible; (iii) Whether the appellant is entitled to an enhanced refund claim submitted by letter dated 24.08.2016.

Issue (i): Whether mines constitute 'place of removal' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purposes of the refund notification.

Analysis: The Notification permits refund where goods are transported from the place of removal to port. The term 'place of removal' is not defined in the Notification or Finance Act and reference is made to Explanation VI(c) to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which includes a factory or any other place or premises of production. CESTAT precedent treats mining as production/manufacture. The facts show removal of iron ore from mine areas to port for export.

Conclusion: Held in favour of the Appellant. Mines qualify as 'place of removal' and the condition is satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant proved payment of service tax on GTA services and that cenvat credit was not availed.

Analysis: The appellant produced agreements, shipping bills, GAR-7 challans, and a CA certificate certifying payment of service tax and non-availment of cenvat credit. The impugned order did not identify specific missing documents. Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST permits a liberal approach to linkage where bulk exports and practical constraints are shown. A CA certificate examining books has evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded without reason.

Conclusion: Held in favour of the Appellant. The appellant established payment of service tax on GTA services and non-availment of cenvat credit; refund admissible for the claimed amount.

Issue (iii): Whether the enhanced refund claimed by letter dated 24.08.2016 is admissible in the present proceedings.

Analysis: The original claim of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- was the subject matter of adjudication and remand; the enhancement sought in 2016 related to additional invoices not part of the original claim and was filed after many years. The adjudicating authority was bound by the scope of the remand and the Commissioner (Appeals) directions to confine reconsideration to the original claim. Authorities cited by appellant were found distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: Held against the Appellant. The enhanced claim is not admissible in the present proceedings and must be filed as a fresh claim if maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed; the appellant's original refund claim of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- is allowed with interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the enhanced claim of Rs. 1,23,82,560/- is rejected and not entertained in these proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST (as amended), mining constitutes production so mines can be 'place of removal' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; a CA certificate and supporting export and payment records suffice to establish payment of service tax and non-availment of cenvat credit where specific missing documents are not identified; enhancements involving invoices not part of the original processed claim must be filed as a fresh claim and cannot be allowed in a remand confined to the original claim.

---