2013 (8) TMI 855

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tilized for export of goods as per provisions of Notification 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. Their claim was sanctioned in respect of a few input services but amounts of Rs. 65020/- and Rs. 3738/- were rejected. The two appeals being decided are in respect of such credit for the two different quarters as stated above. 2. Refund is rejected in respect of the following services : (i)      Inland Haulage Charges; (ii)    Terminal Handling Charges; (iii)   Bill of Lading Charges; (iv)   Processing fee, Terminal Services, Movement charges in port, etc. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the lower authorities rejecting refunds of Service tax credit for such charges amounting to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - -- -- 2. Section 65(105)(zn) Services provided for export of said goods -- -- -- -- -- 6. Section 65(105)(zzp) Services provided for transport of said goods from the inland container depot to the port of export - -- -- -- --" 5. The first argument is that the impugned services were provided by M/s. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, Ludhiana, who were registered for rendering Port Services and were issuing bills for service rendered classifying the same as Port services. So it is argued that the classification of service cannot be changed at recipient's end. 6. The next argument of the appellant is that the opening paragraph of the notification does not make any reference to Column (2) in the Table. So while .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said heading prior to 1-7-2010 when the entry itself was amended. 9. The ld A. R. also contests that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Western Agencies (supra) has been stayed by Hon'ble Madras High Court as reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R. J50 (Mad.) and hence reliance cannot be placed on the said judgment. 10. I have considered argument on both sides. 11. The first argument that classification of service cannot be changed in the hands of the recipient, by itself is good enough to allow this appeal. Further I note that there is no reference in the opening paragraph to the classification as indicated in Column (2) of the Table in the notification. This appears to be a serious lacuna. But such missing wor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bsp;                                                                                                                            &n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X