2015 (11) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re. They filed refund claim of service tax for Rs. 16,93,619/- under Notification No. 41/2012 dated 29.06.2012 in respect of Port services, Technical Testing & Analysis Service, GTA service and Banking & Financial Services availed for export of Iron Ore in regard to six shipping Bills of various dates. On verification of the refund claim the Jurisdictional Superintendent noted the following defects. (i) That appellant had not submitted document under Rule 11 which indicate goods have been removed from the place of removal as under Section 4 (3) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) That the claim pertains to period 2012-13. The ST-3 return for the period 6/2012 shows that appellant has utilized Cenvat Credit availed on inp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Moreover, that the objection so raised were merely technical and that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses, if any. 5. The learned DR supported the impugned order and argued that the claim has been rightly rejected. Heard both sides and perused the records. Let me now consider the objections raised for denying the refund. 6. The first reason is that the invoices are not proper as under Rule 11 and that place of removal is not shown. In Para 22 of the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority has noted that he has examined the transport bills, bilties, ledgers of relevant parties and reconciled the same with the Iron Ore Shipping bills. Appellant submitted that all invoices were produced before adjudicating....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods. The party instead of claiming exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST has claimed refund of service tax paid against GTA services used for transportation of Iron ore fines exported under the above Shipping Bills having Bill of lading." 7. Another the reason observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denial of refund is that for the Financial Year 2012-2013, the appellant is said to have availed Cenvat Credit pertaining to service tax paid on telephone bill, but these services are not related to export. The learned Counsel pointed out that appellant has not claimed refund pertaining to telephone services. Respondents do not have a case that appellants claimed credit on any of the specified services used for export of goods. ....