TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im filed by the appellant under Notification No. 41/2007-ST in respect of the service tax paid by them for Goods Transport Agency services, documentation charges and Terminal Handling Charges (THC) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that refund claim for THC has been rejected on the ground that service provider was not authorised by the Port. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one service refund claim can not be rejected. I have gone through one of the sample invoices provided by the learned counsel I find that it is not possible to make out which category the service provider has been registered. No evidence has been gathered to show that service tax of which refund claim was made was the service tax paid on the Business Auxiliary Services/ Business Support Service whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any specific detail the presumption would be that service provided is relating to CHA which is one of the services notified under Notification No. 41/2007. 5. It is also to be observed that THC was also collected by the CHA and in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary it is to be presumed that this amount was collected by the CHA and paid to the concerned authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o-relation is possible since the factory invoice number is mentioned in the export invoice and ARE-1. With the help of ARE-1, export invoice and factory invoice and LR it is possible to correlate and come to the conclusion that LR produced for having paid service on GTA service is linked to the export goods. He also submits that original authority had allowed the refund claim and the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with LR. Since the LR is required to contain the details it would be appropriate that the transporter file the reconciliation statement. 7. Since the observations made above requires fresh verification of certain facts and consideration of refund claim afresh, the impugned order is set-aside and matter is remanded back to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision, after giving re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|