Case Law Details
Raj Petro Specialties Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Introduction: This article delves into a significant order by CESTAT Chennai in the case of Raj Petro Specialties Ltd vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The dispute revolves around the rejection of a service tax refund claim for transportation charges due to the non-production of lorry receipts. CESTAT Chennai, considering a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, challenges the procedural infraction and allows the service tax refund.
Detailed Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing goods under Chapter 27 of CETA, 1985, exported their products and sought a service tax refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST. While certain services were approved for refund, transportation charges from the factory to the port faced rejection. The rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to appeal before CESTAT Chennai.
The heart of the matter lies in the conditions specified under Sl.No.6 of the Notification. The appellant failed to produce lorry receipts detailing the invoice/shipping bill information, a procedural requirement under the notification. Instead, they submitted a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, certifying the correlation between transportation charges and shipping bills.
The appellant relied on a Board’s circular (No.120/01/2010 -ST) to argue that a one-to-one correlation could be established through a Chartered Accountant certificate. However, the adjudicating authority rejected this argument, prioritizing the notification over the circular. The appellant contested, emphasizing the binding nature of the Board’s circular and its issuance to address challenges faced by exporters in obtaining lorry receipts.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
