Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1132 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - denial on the ground that though, to and fro freight charges have been claimed by service provider, no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills from pithampur to port of export - period of limitation - Held that: - no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills raised by the transporter for transportation of goods from Pithampur to Port of Export. Rather, the invoice issued by the service provider mentioned the claim of to and fro freight charges. Since the freight charges are in connection with transportation of export goods, in absence of any specific prohibition contained in Notification 41/2007, the benefit of refund should be available to the appellant. Classification of services - THC, BL charges, Inland Haulage Charges, documentation charges, SB, Pallitization charges, Handling charges and weighment charges, claimed under CHA service by the appellant are covered under the said category of service or not? - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of M/s. Shivam Exports, M/s. Mecshot Blasting Equipment (P) Ltd. And M/s. Shree Ram Industries Versus CCE Jaipur [2016 (2) TMI 259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the services are in relation to the services provided within the port and merits consideration for refund Time bar - Held that: - since the appellant is not contesting the refund on the ground of limitation, the rejection of refund claim by the authorities below on the ground of limitation is sustainable.
|