Page 128 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

30 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
exporters to produce documents in accordance with Section
65(105)(zn) as there is no procedure of issuing permission letters or
authorization to such service providers. The Board in its circular
dated 12-3-2009 has clarified that granting refund does not require the
verification of registration of service provider and refund can be granted
if otherwise in order. The implication of these two clarifications
read together, along with the amendment brought forth in the defi-
nition of port services, in our view, is that the exporter should not
be unduly burdened with a condition to establish that the service
provider was registered under port services. The Learned Counsel
for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment in Commissioner v.
Adani Enterprises Ltd., 2014 (35) S.T.R. 741 (Guj.) wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has considered the very same issue and held in
favour of the assessee. The said decision squarely covers the issue in
the present case the facts being similar. Revenue placed reliance on
the decision rendered by CESTAT in Rajasthan Textile Mills v. Com-
missioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 410
(Tri. - Del.). The refund claim therein was denied as the appellants
had availed drawback also in respect of goods exported by them.
Facts being different the said case is distinguished from the case in
hand.
In the event, that part of the impugned order rejecting the refund claims re-
lating to invoices for port services issued by M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries
is set aside and appeal on that score is allowed. So ordered.
(ii) Amount of refund claimed for services availed of commission agent,
rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld in the impugned order, is
not pressed by the Ld. Advocate and hence we do not interfere with the
impugned order on that score. So ordered.
(iii) On the issue of the exact period of refund, we find there is some con-
fusion. The SCN produced by the appellant in para 4(iii) indicates that the
amount of Rs. 10,23,976/- is related to export clearances made prior to 1-4-
2008. However, that aspect is not forthcoming from the annexure to the
SCN. We therefore deem it fit to remand this issue to the adjudicating au-
thority for reconsideration of this issue as per law, laid in provisions, notifi-
cation, Circular and case laws applicable thereon.
(iv) So also, with regard to the portion of the refund claim pertaining to
courier services, the matter is being remanded to enable the appellants to
produce all the related invoices issued by the service provider. Once the
appellant is able to establish the co-relation between the goods exported
and/or export documents and the invoices issued by such service provider,
the refund should be sanctioned as held by the Tribunal in Antak Agencies
(International) (supra). So ordered.”
3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. V. Sundareswaran, drawing
our attention to Notification No. 17/2008-S.T., by which the main Notification
No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 was amended, submitted that the Assessee
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited had not established that the service provider
M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries engaged in Port Services, had provided any spe-
cific service to the Assessee M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited, on which the
CENVAT/Refund of the Service Tax was claimed by the Assessee in terms of the
said amending Notification dated 1-4-2008. The said amending Notification No.
17, dated 1-4-2008, to its relevant extent is quoted below for ready reference.

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  192