9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uri, DR PER : R K Singh The appellants have filed this appeal against Order-in-appeal No.62(DK) CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 24.03.2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original No.23/R/2008-09 dated 30.05.2008 in terms of which appellantsrefund claim of Rs. 2,37,136/- was rejected. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellants filed the refund claim of Rs. 2,37,136 in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led of at the port as the same were availed of beyond the factory gate. The appellants have also contended that whatever services are rendered in the port area are to be treated as port services. On these bases, the appellants contended that they are eligible for the impugned refund. 4. We have considered the appellants contentions and pursued Notification No.41/2007-ST. One of the conditions pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be covered under port services. It is seen that Notification No.41/2007-ST provides for refund of service tax paid on services specified in the schedule thereto. The onus is thus squarely on the appellants to show that the service tax they are seeking refund was paid on services which are specified in the said schedule. The appellants have not given any evidence to the effect that the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts referred to the CESTAT Larger Bench decision in the case Western Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Chennai 2011(22) STR 305 (Tri.-LB) in an attempt to support to their case. We have perused the said judgment. That judgment deals with the issue of classification of certain services under port service. In the present case, the CHA service is a distinct service and the service tax is paid by their CHA. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
