Raju ORDER
Ramesh Nair, Member (J)
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a merchant exporters inter-alia engaged in the business of export of goods. The appellant originally filed refund claim of Rs. 49,81,606/- on 29.05.2008 in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST : MANU/DSTX/0081/2007 dated 06.10.2007 as amended from time to time of service tax for the services used in export of goods. The said refund claim was filed on account of services received for export of goods for the quarter Jan 2008 to March 2008. The appellant filed letter dated 06.02.2009, withdrew the refund claim amounting of Rs. 29,22,536/- and claimed refund of the balance amount. The Assistant Commissioner of service tax vide order-in-original No. SD-02/Ref-20/09-09 dated 20.08.2009/31.03.2009 sanctioned refund claim of Rs. 1,17,003/- and rejected for the balance amount. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in order-in-appeal No. OIA-270/2009/STC/HKJ/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 08.10.2009 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding the case on merit, in terms of Para 6 of the impugned order confirmed the order-in-original dated 31.03.2009. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on following points;
(i) Registration number of the service providers was not mentioned in the invoices issued by the service provider.
(ii) Refund claim pertaining to the period October 2007 to December 2007 for which refund claim was filed after a period of 60 days, therefore hit by limitation.
(iii) Refund claim filed for service tax paid on GTA Service for transportation of goods from ICD to Port was not supported with proper documents, co-related with export of goods.
(iv) Refund claim filed for storage and warehouse service rejected on the premise that there was no co-relation of export with documents of service provided of storage and warehouse.
(v) Refund claim was filed for GTA for transportation of goods from place of removal upto Port, lorry receipt did not mention name of the appellant therefore, it was held that refund claim was not filed with proper documents.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed the present appeal.
2. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as regards the issue of non-mention of registration number in the invoices issued by the service provider, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the premise that registration number of the service provider was not mentioned in the invoice and therefore, in view of Board Circular No. 106/9/2008-ST : MANU/DSTX/0065/2008 dated 11.12.2008, the said invoice are not proper documents as per rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 therefore, refund claim was not permissible. It is his submission that Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly placed reliance on the circular dated 11.12.2008 whereas the same circular was amended vide Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 wherein the issue related to mention of registration number was clarified and due to this discrepancy, refund cannot be denied. He further submits that the fact regarding export of goods and use of service for such exports, payment of value of services including service tax to the service providers are not in dispute. Therefore, denial of refund on this count is not tenable. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case Crystalline Exports Limited vs. CST - MANU/CM/0487/2014 : 2015 (37) STR 778 (Tri. Mumbai).
3. In the context of refund claim filed for October 2007 to December 2007 in the quarter of Jan 2008 to March 2008, it was filed after stipulated time limit pro........