75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

January 2014

2013 (32) STR 481 (Tri.-Bang.) Jumbo Mining Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether rebate claim can be rejected on the failure to mention details of exporter’s details on lorry receipts?

Facts:
Appellant, an exporter of goods, paid service tax on the transportation of goods from its mine to port and on stockyard rent and filed rebate claim. The claim was rejected for service tax on transportation on the ground that the exporter’s Invoice details were not mentioned on the lorry receipts which was in contravention to condition mentioned in the Notification No. 41/2007 ST as amended by Notification No. 3/2008 ST and further there was no co-relation between stockyard rent and export of goods.

Held:
Though the exporter’s invoice details were not mentioned on the Lorry receipts, the compliance with the conditions of the above Notifications could have been done by broad correlation of evidence of transportation with the service tax paid thereon and quantity exported and hence the Appellant was entitled to the rebate of service tax on transportation. For the rebate of service tax on the stockyard rent, it was held that, since the Appellant was unable to establish nexus between the input service (stockyard rent) and exported goods, the claim was not admissible. Thus claim was allowed partially.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2013-TIOL-1805-CESTAT-DEL M/s Bansal Classes vs. Commissioner of Customs & Excise, Jaipur

2013-TIOL-1765-CESTAT-MUM Swapnashilp Travels vs. CCE. Nagpur & CCE., Nagpur vs. Swapnashilp Travels