2012 (7) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued show cause notice for rejection of the same on different grounds. However, after considering the defence reply of the appellant, the original adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim on the basis of provisions of the said Notification No. 41/2007-ST.   2. The Revenue went in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the grounds taken by the Revenue were as follows :-   The invoices issued by M/s. Bal Roadlines, the transporter, do not contain Service Tax Registration No. which is necessary in terms of Para 4 of Board s Circular No. 106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008. It has also been contended that the Range Superintendent proposed for rejection of an amount of Rs. 77,065/- while refund of Rs. 90,058/- was rejec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made by the respondent by reverse charge method. As the transporters are not making payment of service tax on GTA service, there can be no objection for not mentioning the service tax registration No. on the LRs. Thus, I find that the Assistant Commissioner correctly sanctioned refund claim of service tax paid by the respondent themselves on GTA service by reverse charge method.   5.2. The other contention in the Departmental appeal is that on shipping bills, invoice No. is mentioned while on LRs of the transporters, purchase order Nos. are mentioned and hence it can not be correlated that the said service of transportation was used fro export of the goods. This contention in Departmental appeal does not appear convincing because f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assistant Commissioner has rejected higher amount. I am unable to understand as to what is grievance of the Department if the Assistant Commissioner rejected higher amount. It may be the grievance of the respondent but the respondent accepted the said order because the order is legal and proper inasmuch as the respondent could not produce the E-payment challans for Rs. 71,765.25, could not submit proof of export for refund of Rs. 12,775.15 and actually claimed excess refund of Rs. 5515.65.   5.4 The other contention in Departmental appeal for wrong rejection of the said claim of Rs. 90,058/-is that the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 30.03.2010 stated that work sheet enclosed but as per remarks dated 31.03.2010 of Supe....