TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase are that the appellant filed refund claim amounting to Rs. 93,034/- on 26-03-2009 for a period July, 2008 to September, 2008, and refund claim of Rs. 79,27,347/- for the period October, 2007 to June, 2008 was filed on 21-02-2008, 26-05-2008 and 29-08-2008. The refund claims filed under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06-10-2007 in respect of General Insurance Service, Goods Transport Agency Service, Port Service (Terminal Handling Charges), Custom House Agent Service, Technical Certification & Inspection Service and Storage & Warehousing Service. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the aforesaid claim vide Adjudication Orders dated 18-02-2009 and 10-07-2009. Aggrieved by both the Order-in-Originals, the appellant filed the appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and date of shipping bill, (b) description of export goods, (c) number and date of export invoice. (v) Technical Certification & Inspection Service - Verification of sample invoices shows, the appellant has not satisfied condition (i) in as much as they have not submitted any written agreement with buyer requiring inspection and certification of said goods. (vi) Storage & Warehousing Service - The appellant has not submitted any evidence that the said goods are stored in a storage or warehouse which is approved by the competent authority and the storage or warehouse is exclusively used for the purpose of storage & warehousing of export goods. 3. Shri R. V. Shetty, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they have g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy Service used for transportation of export goods are not in dispute therefore the refund should not be rejected. He placed reliance on the judgment of CCE, Ahemdabad-II vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. [2010-TIOL-1639-CESTAT-AHM]. As regard refund in respect of Custom House Agent Service, he submits that the conditions (i)(a), (b) and (c) of Notification No. 41/2007-ST are procedural. However the correlation of export goods can easily be established on the basis of documents such as export invoice, shipping bill, bill of lading and input service provider's invoice etc. Therefore substantial benefit of refund could not have been denied. He further submits that the lower authorities rejected the refund claim in respect of Storag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dant. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. The Ld. Counsel has taken us to the various documents such as input service invoices, export invoices, shipping bills, lorry receipt etc. and shown us that the nexus of input services on which refund was sought for, with the export goods gets established. However, both the lower authorities have not perused such records and the refund was rejected only on the ground that conditions prescribed in the Notification were not complied with. 6.1 As regard Port Service, refund was rejected on the ground that the invoice was not issued either by the port authorities or their agent. Therefore, on the invoices issued other than the said persons refund in not adm....