ALPINE APPARELS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are exporters of leather goods. The appellants had claimed refund of Service Tax paid on services utilized for such export as per the provision of Notification No. , dated 7 -7 -2009. They were granted refund in respect of most of the services utilized by them for making the exports. However, in case of courier services. Revenue has denied such refund on the ground that conditions prescribed in the said Notification for grant of such refund has not been complied with. The conditions in respect of courier services specified in the Notification are the following: -

(2.) The appellants produced their invoices for export of goods. The appellant also produced the invoices used by the courier agency. These two documents were meeting all the requirements except that the receipt issued by the courier agency was not showing the IEC code number of the appellant. However, the invoice shows the name of the appellants and their complete address. The appellant submitted their registration certificate showing the IEC number of the appellant to prove that they are registered with the DGFT, and giving their IEC.

(3.) OPPOSING the prayer, the DR submits that there is a specific condition in the notification that the invoice issued by the courier should indicate the IEC of the exporter. This condition is not satisfied and hence refund cannot be granted. Considered arguments of both sides. I find that there is a minor infraction of the condition specified in the notification but that cannot be reason for denying a substantial benefit like refund of tax incidence on export of goods. I consider that the level of co -relation established by the appellant through the different documents is sufficient for granting the refund. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and order that the impugned refund may be granted to the appellants.