T.C. Terrytex Ltd vs C.C.E., Chandigarh Ii
- CitationService Tax Appeal No.58377 of 2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The refund of service tax under Notification No.17/2009-ST is conditional on the claimant producing documents that satisfy the notification's requirements, namely invoices issued by the clearing and forwarding agent specifying the shipping bill number and date, the description of the exported goods, and the number and date of the inputs used regarding those goods; documents that do not meet these requirements, or that fail to establish the nexus between the claimant and the service provider and between the services and the goods exported, do not entitle the claimant to refund. Where the authorities below have concurrently found, as questions of fact, that the claimant has not established such a nexus or fulfilled the essential conditions of the notification, a bare assertion of substantial compliance, supported by bills of lading and photocopies of invoices and debit notes that do not satisfy the notification's specified contents, does not warrant interference with the rejection of the refund claim.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Arising out of the order in appeal No.65/ST/Appeal/Chd-II/2013 dated 26.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh II.
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
T.C. Terrytex Ltd. .. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Chandigarh II . Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants
Present Shri Devender Singh, A.R for respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Final Order No. 51585/2015
Per Justice G. Raghuram:
The appeal is preferred against a concurrent rejection of a claim for refund presented on the basis of Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh vide the order dated 14.2.2012 allowed refund to the extent of Rs.7,832/- while rejecting refund claim to the extent of Rs.2,04,092/-. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh II vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant herein, concurring with the primary authority.
2. The appellant is a registrant for service tax for rendition of transport of goods by road and for business auxiliary service. The appellant is also a manufacturer and exporter of 100% cotton terry towels. It filed refund claim for Rs.2,11,924/-, claiming the benefit of Notification No.17/2009-ST in respect of service tax paid on clearing and forwarding services used in the export of finished goods, exported during October 2010 to December 2010. Notification No17/2009-ST inter alia requires the production of invoices issued by a C & F agent for providing service as clearing and forwarding agent, which should disclose/specify (a) the number and date of shipping bill (b) the description of exported goods and (c) the number and date of the inputs used by the exporter regarding the exported goods apart from other details specified in the Notification. Scrutiny of the refund claim submitted and the documents furnished by the appellant asserted payment of service tax in the shape of input/debit notes to certain entities which were considered to be neither the service providers nor were the documents furnished valid documents for claiming the benefits of Notification No.17/2009-ST. The primary authority therefore rejected refund claim to the extent of Rs.2,04,092/-.
3. Ld. appellate authority concurred with the primary authority and dismissed the appeal after recording a conclusion that the documents submitted failed to establish the claim for refund. Invoice/shipping bills which would establish utilization of the input service for export of goods, were however not furnished. The appellate authority clearly recorded the finding that in the absence of evidence of the nexus between the appellant and the provider of services which were claimed to have been utilized for export, no refund could be granted. The appellate authority further concluded that the appellant failed to submit any proof to establish any nexus between the inputs and the fact of the goods exported and that essential conditions for availment of refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST were not fulfilled.
4. In the light of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, the claim by the appellant reiterated before this Tribunal, that the invoices submitted and that the refund claim contained details of the bills of lading which are essential documents of proof of export setting out the export invoices and container numbers and that photocopies of invoice/debit notes which were filed certified that the specific services were received regarding export of goods and that service tax was remitted and these should have been considered as substantial compliance with Notification No.17/209-ST, does not commend acceptance.
5. On the above analysis, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected, but in the circumstances without costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
scd/
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free