TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding shipping bills so as to co-relate their claim - denial of refund on the technical grounds is not justified - Appellant’s appeal is accordingly, partly allowed and partly remanded - E/5 & 14/2010 - A/1804-1805/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 22-10-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri Avinash Thete, SDR , for the Appellant. Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order] . - Both the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and other by assessee, are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Avinash Thete, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri R. Subramanya, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. As pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebit notes issued by them do not reveal that the Port has authorized them. I find that the said services are not covered under Port service but are covered under Custom House Agent Service. Since the Customs House Agent service has been specified under Notification No. 17/2008-S.T. with effect from 1-4-2008, the appellant are eligible for the refund of service tax paid on said services. In the subject show cause notice it is alleged that the services provider was not authorized by the Port as no such authorization was found mentioned on the invoices furnished by the appellant. When the payment of service tax made towards shipping bill charges, loading and unloading charges, Forklift/crane charges, sealing and strapping charges, DDC, haulage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. The Revenue in their memo of appeal have again reiterated the same very grounds, which were considered by the original adjudicating authority. The specific finding arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) do not stand disputed by them. It is also contended by the Revenue that the service providers were registered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and not under the Port services/CHA services. However, I find that above issue stands clarified by the Board vide its Circular No. 112/6/2009, dated 12-3-2009. Vide serial No. 7 of the table attached to the said circular, it stands clarified as under :- VII The service provider providing services to the exporter provides various services. But he has registration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipts mention the exporters invoice and the corresponding shipping bills so as to co-relate their claim. I find that the above plea was raised before Commissioner (Appeals), who has rejected the same on the ground that no invoices were produced. Otherwise there is no rebuttal to the appellant s contention that the lorry receipts and the corresponding shipping bills specify the relevant details relating to export goods. As such, I am of the view that denial of refund on the technical grounds is not justified. Accordingly, I set-aside the that part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has rejected the refund claim of Rs. 34,746/-. 6. As regards refund of Rs. 15,942/-, the appellate authority has observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
