TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be denied on ground of limitation - matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudging the admissibility of the refund claim on merits - appeal partly allowed and part matter on remand. - Appeal No. E/05 and 14 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2010 - Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member,J. Avinash Thete, SDR, and R. Subramanya, Adv., for the Appellant R. Subramanya, Adv., and Avinash Thete, SDR, for the Respondent ORDER Archana Wadhwa: 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 ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, DDC, haulage, THC, Documentation, Repo charges etc under invoice/debit 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-ST with effect from 01.4.2008, 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore find that the refund of ₹ 2,650/- is admissible to the appellants. 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.112/06/2009 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 ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipts only, which reflects upon the entire particulars. Such lorry 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 ₹ 34,746/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such revised limitation period would be admissible if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, refund claims of service tax on specified taxable services used for exports of goods made in the quarter March-June 2008 could be filed till 31 st Dec 2008. 7. In view of the above, we find that reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld. Accordingly, I set-aside the said part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to him for adjudging the admissibility of the refund claim on merits. 8. Appellant's appeal is accordingly, partly allowed and partly remanded. Both the appeals are disposed off in above manner. Pronounced in the Court on 22.10.2010. - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
