AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n GTA services received from service providers, in relation to export of cargo. The iron ore fines, being a commodity which is exported in bulk cargo, the same is required to be taken to the port in separate trucks and thereafter aggregated at port [viz. Paradeep, Haldia] before the export invoice is generated. The iron ore fines are produced in bulk and continuously transported to the port/railway siding. Once there is sufficient stock in the port plot, global tenders are invited from foreign customers and all the iron ore fines transported to the plot are exported to the foreign customers as per purchase orders. 1.1. On 30.05.2008, The Appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 for the tax paid on GTA services used for export of iron ore fines during the relevant period. The refund application was accompanied with relevant invoices, challan evidencing payment of service tax, proof of exports etc. 1.2. A Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2008 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Rourkela-II Division proposing to reject the refund claim for non-compliance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax paid during the relevant period. 1.6. In accordance with the remand direction passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Ld. Assistant Commissioner passed an order-in-original dated 30.03.2017, rejecting the refund claim on the following grounds. a. Mines do not qualify as 'place of removal' in terms of the said Notification, therefore, the iron ore fines were not exported from the place of removal to the port of export as required under Sl. No. 11 of the said Notification. b. the Appellant failed to show that service tax had been paid on the GTA services which were used in relation for export of goods. c. the Appellant failed to provide any document proving that it had not claimed Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid against GTA service. d. lorry receipts as well as shipping bills did not reflect the details of invoices/bills, therefore, correlation between these documents are not possible e. since the Appellant sought to claim extra refund by way of a letter instead of a fresh application, the enhancement of claim of refund cannot be possible. 1.7. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory;] from where such goods are removed;" 2.2. As per the aforesaid definition, 'place of removal' includes factory, or any other place or premise wherein the excisable goods are manufactured or produced. Hence, it is submitted that the phrase 'place of removal' is not strictly restricted to the factory premise but also includes any other place or premise of production of excisable goods. The Appellant cited the decision of CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Avian Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 2009 (15) STR 540 (Tri.-Kol), wherein it has been held that the activity of mining amounts to production/manufacture of goods. Thus, in the instant case the activity of mining would qualify as production of excisable goods viz. iron ore. These excisable goods are further removed from their place of production viz. mine areas to the port for the purpose of exportation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conditions prescribed for determining 'place of removal' as per Section 4 of CE Act has been fulfilled in the facts of the present case. 2.3. The Appellant also submitted that the same issue has already been decided in favour of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on GTA services, is wholly unsustainable. 3.1. Additionally, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has also held that the Appellant has failed to establish that they have not availed Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid against GTA services. In this regard, the Appellant submits that they have not availed Cenvat Credit on the tax paid on receipt of GTA services, which were used in relation to export of iron ore. In support of the above, the Appellant produced a CA Certificate before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the books of accounts and other financial records were examined and it was certified by the Chartered Accountant that the Appellant had not availed Cenvat Credit on the GTA services, which were used in relation to the export of goods. However, the said CA Certificate has been ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. The said certificate is also a proof of the factum of payment of service tax on GTA services procured for transportation of iron ore fines from mines to the port. It is a trite law that a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, who is an expert in the accounting profession, has immense evidentiary val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, 2025 (6) TMI 263 - CESTAT KOLKATA held that the admissibility of refund of service tax paid on GTA service shall be permitted by taking a liberal view in accordance with the condition requiring self-certification or CA Certificate as envisaged in the Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010. In view of the foregoing submissions, the Appellant submits that the impugned order upholding the rejection of refund claim of the Appellant is liable to be set aside. 4. Regarding the issue of excess claim of refund, the Appellant submits that during the relevant period, they had calculated the refund claim incorrectly as Rs. 1,12,49,745/-, as some entries were missed while calculating the refund claim, however, subsequently they realized that there had been an inadvertent error on their part as a result of which the refund claim stood revised to Rs. 1,23,82,560/-. Accordingly, vide a letter dated 24.08.2016 the revised amount along with a detailed calculation sheet were provided to the department. In view thereof, the department ought to have considered the revised refund claim and sanctioned the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,23,82,560....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification nor the Finance Act, 1994 has defined the term 'place of removal', thus, the meaning of the said phrase ought to be borrowed from the CE Act wherein sub-clause (c) of Explanation VI of Section 4 defines the term 'place of removal' . A perusal of the definition of 'place of removal' reveals that it includes factory, or any other place or premise wherein the excisable goods are manufactured or produced. Thus, we observe that the phrase 'place of removal' is not strictly restricted to the factory premise but also includes any other place or premise of production of excisable goods. As held by CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Avian Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 2009 (15) STR 540 (Tri.-Kol), the activity of mining amounts to production/manufacture of goods. In the instant case, we observe that the excisable goods viz. iron ore has been removed from their place of production viz. mine areas to the port for the purpose of exportation. Accordingly, we hold that the conditions prescribed for determining 'place of removal' as per Section 4 of CE Act has been fulfilled in the facts of the present case. We also take note of the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the said CA certificate is a proof of payment of service tax on GTA services procured for transportation of iron ore fines from mines to the port. It is a trite law that a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, who is an expert in the accounting profession, cannot be ignored without any valid reason This view is supported by the decision in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. V. CCE (Import & General), 2014 (302) E.L.T. 501 (Del.). Thus, by relying on the CA Certificate, we hold that the Appellant has produced the proof of payment of service tax on GTA services procured for transportation of iron ore fines from mines to the port. Accordingly, we hold that the rejection of the refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. 8.2. We also observe that the refund claim filed by the Appellant was rejected on the ground of noncompliance of condition (iii) in column 4 of entry no. 11 of the Schedule appended to Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 [amending the Notification No. 41/2007-ST] which requires mentioning of exporter's invoice details on the lorry receipts and corresponding shipping bills. In this regard, we observe that the export of iron ore fines, per shipment, wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection of the refund claim on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paras are not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the refund of Rs. 1,12,49,745/-, as claimed in the refund application dated 30.05.2008. The Appellant is also eligible for interest as provided under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, at the applicable rate. 9. Regarding the enhanced claim of refund, we find that initially the appellant has filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,12,49,745/-. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner vide an order-in-original dated 23.09.2009 rejected this amount of refund claimed by the appellant. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO dated 23.09.2009 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority vide OIA dated 02.03.2010. After a period of more than six years, the Appellant by way of a letter dated 24.08.2016, intimated the department that there had been a clerical error while filing the refund claim and accordingly sought to revise the refund amount from Rs. 1,12,49,745/- to Rs. 1,23,82,560/-. In this regard, we observe that the additional claim made by the Appellant was not with respect to the i....