GEE PEE AGRI PVT. LTD. Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard respective counsel. We find that the title to exported goods had been transferred by appellant to the merchant-exporter who ultimately has effected the export. The export documents show him as exporter and he has received the payment from the ultimate purchaser. Because of arrangement between him and present appellant, out of that payment received by him in advance, some part was made over to appellant. Service Tax, in relation to which present dispute arises, was, no doubt, paid by present appellant.

(2.) In this situation, Mr. Deo has attempted to press wider definition of exporter and in that background, has invited our attention to the Departmental Circular bearing F. No. 605/93-94-DBK. He has further, in the alternative and without prejudice to his contention, relied upon the definition and concept of sale as understood in Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Effort has also been made to show that merchant-exporter can still file application for refund before competent authority having jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned Asstt. Solicitor General has supported the impugned order and contended that as title had passed in favour of merchant- exporter before export, the appellant is not entitled to any relief.