TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The said Notification was amended vide Notification No. 1/2016-ST dated 03.02.2016, so as to, inter alia, allow refund of Service Tax on services used beyond the factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the said goods, for export of the said goods. 1.1 Department on examination of the refund claim found that the claim has been filed in respect of services used in export of goods, namely, cargo handling service, port service, banking and other financial services and GTA services, which are the specified services under the said Notification. Department observed that the invoices pertaining to refund claim of Rs. 8,320/- is filed with the invoices, which have no mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices, irrespective that the invoices were draft invoice. Above all, a C.A. Certificate was furnished certifying all the relevant details to be correct. As far as Banking and Financial Services are concerned, it is submitted that original invoices for those services were produced by the appellant. However, authority has failed to appreciate the same. The services are otherwise for the purposes of export only. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Raipur vs. Satyam Balaji Rice Industries Ltd. reported in 2015 (39) STR 1004 (Tri.-Del.) alleging that the refund claim has wrongly been rejected. Accordingly, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Learned D.R. per-contra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoice No. are mentioned. It has been a settled law that so long there is a substantive compliance of the Notification the benefit cannot be denied and a mere clerical error should not be the ground of rejection of refund claim or the benefit. In view thereof the allegation of invoice being a mere draft invoice is not sustainable, specially when there is no other documents in possession of the Department to falsify the invoices produced by the appellant on record. I draw my support from the decision of Apex Court Mangalore Fertilizers & Chemicals vs. Dy. Commissioner in which is relied upon in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur vs. Satyam Balaji Rice Industry Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015 (39) STR 1004 - (Tri.-D....