2012 (9) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....38,019/- on account of services used for exported goods as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended. The adjudicating authority had allowed Rs. 1,84,687/- from the said claim on port services but rejected the claim of Rs. 4,53,332/- on GTA services on two grounds. Firstly, the mines cannot be regarded as a place of removal and secondly, the export invoices numbers are not mentioned in the lorry receipt and the shipping bills as required under Notification 14/07-ST dated 6.10.07 as amended by Notification 3/2008-ST dated 19.2.2008. 3. The Id.Commissioner (Appeals) in his order disagreed with the reasoning that the export effected directly from the mines to the port cannot be considered to come within the definition of pl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....them and they can satisfy and co-relate the lorry receipt with the export invoices so as to satisfy the Department that the refund of service tax claimed pertains to GTA services used for the export of goods. He has referred to the judgement of the Tribunal in the West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of M.R. Organization v. CCE [Final order No. A/2310/09 WZB/Ahd, dated 30-10-2009] wherein on a similar issue interpreting the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended, the Tribunal has allowed the benefit of refund to the exporter in that case. 5. Per contra, the Id.A.R. appearing for the Department has submitted that the condition laid down under Notification is mandatory in nature and before the eligibility to avail the be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d condition is substantive or otherwise as I find that on similar issue, this Tribunal in the case of M.R. Organization (supra) after interpreting the said Notification has observed as: "3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In this case there is no dispute that the goods have been exported. There is also no dispute that courier service has been availed. The only objection Revenue has taken is that the invoices did not contain the necessary details and same have been given subsequently. No doubt the requirements, the receipt issued by the courier agency should contain are specified. However, there is no bar to provide these details separately in case the original receipt did not contain these details. In such a cas....