TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant. The appellant is a merchant exporter of agricultural produce like cotton rice bran, maize etc. and claims refund of Service Tax paid on taxable services used for export, in terms of notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. These claims of the appellant were rejected for reasons of inadequacies contained in the supporting invoices. 3. Briefly speaking the deficiencies noticed against the individual claim are as under: - (i) In respect of Appeal No.76607/2016 Sl. No. O-in-O No and date passed by the adjudicating officer. Refund claim (Rs.) Reasons for deficiency Amount disallowed (Rs.) 1 R/67/ST/Div.-I/Kol/13-14 dt.23/09/2013 passed by AC of Service Tax, Divn-I, Service Tax Commissionerate 5,04,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivn.-I, Service Tax Commissionerate 8,46,754/ a) Refund claim of I 29,868/- sanctioned against invoice n in original. b) Refund claim of Rs.13,790/-, sanctioned against unstamped & unsigned copy invoice. c) Refund claim of Rs.77,953/- sanctioned where Vess name and Voyage Name are different in shipping Bill & Bill of Lading. 1,21,611/- 2. R/09/ST-1/BBD Bag-II/Kol/2014-15 dt.10/12/2014 passed by the A.C. of Service Tax, BBD Bag-II, Service Tax-I Commissionerate. 8,66,486/- a) Refund claim of 37,434/- against pre-inspection goods proper that service has not been provided beyond to place of removal. 37,434/- 3. R/11/ST/BBD Bag-II/Kol/2014-15 dt.17/12/2014 passed by the A.C. of Service Tax, BBD Bag-II, Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax, BBD Bag-II, Service Tax-I Commissionerate. 8,96,395/- a) Refund claim of 9,024/- has been sanctioned but exporter not eligible to claim refund on the basis of documents as per the procedure specified paragraph for fulfilling the conditions specified clause I of Notifn.No.41/2012-ST dt.29/06/2012. b) Refund claim of Rs.3,32,029/- has been sanctioned erroneously as certificate have been given by the Chartered Accountant as prescribed in paragraph of Notifn. No.41/2012-SR dt.29/06/2012 c) Refund claim of Rs.86,651/- against pre-inspection of goods no proper and that service has not been provided beyond the 'place of removal'. 4,07,571/- 8 R/27/ST-1/BBD Bag-II/Kol/2015-16 dt.10/07/2015 passed by the A.C. of Service Tax,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned, they had applied for the refund in pursuance of amendment to Notification No.41/2012 Service Tax dated 29.06.2012 carried out vide Notification No.1/2016 Service Tax dated 3rd February 2016, entitling them to the availment of necessary benefit in respect of taxable services that were provided beyond the factory gate or the place of production. It is noted that the said amendment substitutes the original sub-clause (i) in clause (A) of the Explanation, as contained in the notification no.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. This would thus imply that the said sub-clause was in existence since the beginning of the notification and the appellant exporters would be entitled to its benefit retrospectively. 5. The appellant has submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was taken were enclosed with the refund claims and so acknowledged by the authorities. He strongly asserts that there is substantial compliance of all refund process and requirements, upon export of the goods and that they should not be denied refund for minor procedural infarction, as lapses if any were all of a condonable nature or made good before the appropriate authority. 6. From the foregoing paras, it is evident that the reasons cited aforesaid for rejection of the refunds claimed were not of a substantive nature and were deficiencies that should not ordinarily pose any impediment in the sanction of the refund. In any case they are all curable defects/incompleteness. The appellant has informed that refund was already paid to them....