TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the Appellant is an exporter of goods and had filed 26 refund claims under notifications 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 and 52/2011 dated 30.12.2011 for exports made during the period December 2010 to May 2012. Each of the refund claims were adjudicated by the Jurisdictional Assistant / Deputy Commissioner wherein either the refund claim was sanctioned wholly or partly. There were in total 26 Orders in Original. The Appellants had accepted the same. 3. Subsequently, the Orders in Original were reviewed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner u/s 83 who found the above being not in order in view of the following reasons: a) The Refund sanctioning authority had not verified whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore Comm (A) by Revenue Comm (A) conclusion The Refund sanctioning authority has failed to ascertain whether the service provider has claimed any exemption from the payment of tax in respect of services rendered to the exporter When a substantive benefit is granted to one party in a tax transaction, it is to be ensured that the other party does not get the same benefit or advantage resulting in double benefit of tax and causing drainage of revenue. In fact such prerequisites were asked for in the services as well from time to time. For example, in the case of abatement of gross value on GTA Services, service receiver had to obtain certificate of non-availment of credit on inputs / capital goods from the service provider. Therefore, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en mentioned in such certificate. The general open-ended certificate are not acceptable as compliance with the condition at para 2 (i) (F). Further, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that in order to claim benefit under law, substantial compliance is not enough and the procedures prescribed in the statute should be mandatorily followed in view of the SC decision in the case of Harichand Sri Gopal [2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC)] and Indian Oil Corporation Limited [2012 (276) ELT 145 (SC)] Being aggrieved, the Appellants are in Appeal before me seeking to set-aside the Orders in Appeal and restoring of the Orders in Original sanctioning the refund claim. The Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the Appellants reiterated the grounds of ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not have arisen. At the time of filing refund claim, the Appellants had submitted copies of invoices issued by the service provider containing details of service tax on the service provider, thus evidencing that they had not claimed any exemption. * Also, it is a settled position of law that conditions which are not stated in the notification cannot be imposed otherwise than by an amendment [Radhu Industries vs. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2016 (41) STR 574 (Delhi Tribunal)] c) W.r.t the point regarding non-verification of whether the service providers were registered with the port authorities or not, the Appellants stated as under: * There is no such condition prescribed under the notification * Circular 112/ 6/ 2009 - ST Dated 12.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HC in the case of Adani Exports referred above, all services provided within port area are classified as port services. For such services, no specific disclosures were required to be made by the service providers in their invoice. The Appellants also placed reliance on the following decisions wherein it has been held that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. a. CC vs. Jindal Drugs Limited [2018 (360) ELT 988 (Bom)] b. Sage Publications India Private Limited vs. CST, Delhi [2017 (52) STR 295 (Tri - Del)] c. Coromandel Stampings & Stones Limited vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad [2016 (43) STR 221 (Tri - Hyd)] d. Rans Pharma Corporation [2014 (314) ELT 953 (GOI)] 6. The Ld. DR justified the Order of Commissioner (....