TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise, Appeal-I Commissionerate, Kolkata wherein the demands, along with interest and penalty, confirmed in the Order-in-Original No. 67/JC/ST/KOL/2011-12 dated 28.02.2012 have been upheld. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Private Limited, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"] are engaged in the business of import and export of iron ore. The appellant had availed exemption from levy of Service Tax on input services i.e., transportation of goods by road service in terms of Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009. 2.1. A Show Cause Notice dated 01.03.2011 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions specified in the Notification No. 18/2009-S.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the appellant's account in SBI, Raipur Branch. Thus, at the outset, the appellant has pointed out that they have already paid an amount of Rs.10,26,482/- towards the liability. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009 has been denied to them on various grounds. He has also raised specific contentions in respect of each ground, which are as follows: - (i) It is alleged that the appellant had not used the services in the export inasmuch as the Let Export Order dates of export consignments were prior to the dates of transportation in certain cases : (a) In this regard, the appellant points out that only in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....knowledge of the ld. appellate authority along with supporting documents. In this regard, they also state that they have submitted a revised EXP-2 while filing the appeal petition on 17.04.2012 before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, has not considered the revised EXP-2 submitted by them. (b) Accordingly, the appellant submits that they have submitted the EXP-2 within the prescribed time and hence, the denial of the benefit of exemption on the ground of non-filing of EXP-2 within the prescribed time is not sustainable. (iv) It is alleged that the quantity of exported goods does not tally with the quantity mentioned in the consignment note : (a) The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the sake of ready reference, the said chart is reproduced below : - 8.1. A perusal of the above shows that only in respect of the Shipping Bill No. 5559983 dated 03.07.2009, the date of the Let Export Order is prior to the date of transportation of the goods. However, in all the other cases, the dates of Let Export Order are clearly after the dates of transportation. 8.2. Therefore, I find that the benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009 is not available to the appellant in respect of the Shipping Bill No. 5559983 dated 03.07.2009 and consequently, the appellant is liable to forego the amount of Rs.66,437/- pertaining to this Shipping Bill. The allegation in respect of the other 4 Shipping Bills does not sustain s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. With regard to the imposition of penalties, I observe that the appellant has not suppressed any information and are agreeing to forego the amount paid in respect of the Shipping Bill No. 5559983 dated 03.07.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 11. I also take note of submission made by the appellant that they have already paid an amount of Rs.10,26,482/- in the present case; the appellant prays for refund of the same, along with interest. 11.1. As per the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the appellant is found to be ineligible for refund of the amount of Rs.66,437/- in respect of Shipping Bill No. 5559983 dated 03.07.2009. However, in re....