TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Board Circular dt.12.3.09 as well as various case laws as referred to and relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the case of Riddhi Siddhi GlucoBiols Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 187 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and Fibre Bond Industries (2014 (3) TMI 372 - CESTAT MUMBAI). As such, denial of refund claim on THC services does not appear to be correct and is allowed. As regards CHA/C&F service, sufficient co-relation was demonstrated during the course of hearing, that the export consignment, as per Shipping Bill and the service provided in this regard are verifiable and co-relatable on the face of document in form of Shipping Bill number, Invoice Number, Container Number etc. and as such, the ground on which such refund is denied, does not appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter renumbered as Notification No.17/09-ST) in relation to services used for export purposes, has been partly rejected. 2. The facts involved in the present appeal are that the Appellant had availed Terminal Handling Service (claimed as Port Service ), GTA services (export) and C F agency services for export of their goods, and had accordingly filed various refund claims under Noti.41/07-ST dt.6.10.07 as amended, towards Service Tax paid on such Terminal Handling Charges (THC), GTA services (export) and CHA/C F agency services. 2.1 That vide OIO dt.27.8.09, THC (Port service) refund was rejected on the grounds that service providers were registered under either Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Service or CHA service and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to provide port service A. That as long as nature of service bring THC is not in dispute, registration under a different service category, being beyond control of the Appellant, cannot result in denial of refund. B. Authorization from port is not mandatory for service to qualify as port service . Even CHA/Shipping line providing THC/port service, is eligible for refund to exporter - appellant C. Notification nowhere stipulates about service provider being registered under specified service category for eligibility of refund D. So long as nature of service is one of the specified service categories, irrespective of registration of service provider, refund must be granted to the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T-AHM GTA service a. The details of Appellant s invoice no. and date does not appear on LR A. The impugned order travels beyond scope of SCN inasmuch as only objection earlier was limited to GTA being towards bringing empty container into factory from port/ICD. B. LR does not show the details of export invoice, is a procedural error at the end of service provider, which cannot result in denial of refund to exporter C. In any case, service provider s invoice mentions container number LR and vehicle number, which can be collectively co-related with BL and SB, conclusively proving export having taken place D. Requirement of law is to prove exports, which is otherwise prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm of Shipping Bill number, Invoice Number, Container Number etc. and as such, the ground on which such refund is denied, does not appear to be proper. As regards Shipping Bill showing name of different CHA as compared to the actual service provider, it is a practice in vogue to seek services by way of outsourcing by certain shipping lines/CHAs/freight forwarders to arrange for export of consignments for the exporters. In fact, similar situation was examined in the case of ADF Foods (supra) and refund was granted. As such, refund in respect of CHA and C F agent service also is held allowable to the Appellant. 6.2 As regards refund on GTA services, it is the Appellants case that the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of show-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
