TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2016 whereby the assessee is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 3,55,224/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a refund claim in terms of Notification No 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended by Notification No 3/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 for the rebate of service tax on specified services received and used by them for export of iron ore fines during the quarter ended March 2008. Vide the impugned appellate order, the authority while rejecting the claim observed that in terms of conditions (iii) of Sl. No 11 of the schedule to the Notification no 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, as amended by Notification 03/2008 dated 19.02.2008, requires that for claiming refund of taxable services of GT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to export domestic tax along with export of such goods. It was also contended that the Chartered Accountant's certificate broadly correlating the quantity exported and the quantity transported along with bill and challans is on record. 5. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He brought to my notice the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in Principal Commissioner of S.T. vs. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (45) STR 5 (AP) and submitted that the case already stands covered in favour of the Revenue and therefore the instant appeal filed by the assessee has no merit and is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar was relied upon by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, as mentioned in submissions of the assessee. At the same time learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent Revenue could not produce the required documents before the Bench to ascertain as to what extent co-relation can be made and whether any liberal view can be taken in these proceedings in view of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T., dated 19-1-2010. 9. So far as admissibility of Service tax paid on GTA Services is concerned, it is observed that similar refunds were allowed by CESTAT in the case of Jumbo Mining Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad (supra) by making following observations in Para 6.2 as follows :- "6.2 It is not disputed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Similar problem of co-relation and scrutiny of large number of documents was being faced in another scheme (Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007) which grants refund of service tax paid on services used by an exporter after the goods have been removed from the factory. In Budget 2009, the scheme was simplified by making a provision of self-certification [Notification No. 17/2009- S.T.] whereunder an exporter or his Chartered Accountant is required to certify the invoices about the co-relation and the nexus between the inputs/input services and the exports. The exporters are also advised to provide a duly certified list of invoices. The departmental officers are only required to make a basic scrutiny of the documents and, if found ....