TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that M/s Shantadurga Transport Pvt Ltd lodged application dated 23rd April 2010 with the service tax cell of the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Customs, Panaji for refund of Rs. 18,93,888/- claimed to have been tax paid on value of services availed in the course of export of iron ore fines vide shipping bills no. 1037260 dated 26th June 2009, 1037352 dated 3rd July 2009 and 1037928 dated 17th August 2009. Respondent made this claim based on exemption notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July 2009 which requires payment of tax to the provider of service which is reimbursed by the jurisdictional officer upon submission of prescribed documents within a year of the date of export. It is seen that this application was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e refund claim. The first appellate authority, however, accepted the contention of M/s Shantadurga Transport Pvt Ltd that issue of corrigendum/addendum was improper in that the entire complexion of the proceedings was thereby altered after receipt of the reply to the original show cause notice. He drew support for this finding from the decision of the Tribunal in re Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (supra) and, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim, directed the original authority to re-adjudicate by limiting it to the contents of show cause notice dated 7th February 2011. 5. The appeal of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa against the order of the first appellate authority contends that the decisions relied upon were inappropriate a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not commend acceptance." It is the submission of the respondent that corrigenda/ addenda issued after the receipt of reply to the show cause notice on minor grounds was not tenable in view of the decision of this Tribunal in re Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (supra). 7. Having heard both the sides and perused the impugned order, I find that the matter can be disposed off by ascertainment of the legality and propriety of the terms of remand. There is no doubt that the competent authority had resorted to piecemeal objections. However, that does not alter the facts and circumstances relating to the application for refund. Before the first appellate authority, the respondent has not contested the findings of the original authority that the clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....export through third party merchant exporter, held that only an exporter is entitled to claim the refund envisaged in notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July 2009. I find that in the present case too, the documents on record fail to evince nexus between the applicant and the services claimed to have been used. 9. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneshwar- I v. Konark Industries [2011 (270) ELT 673 (Tri-Kolkata)] this Tribunal, having considered the decision rendered in re Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (supra) and found that it was limited to imposition of penalty, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Laminated Products (P) Ltd v. Collector [1997 (94) ELT A153 (SC)], to uphold the action of ....