TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s denied on the ground that refund of this amount is claimed on CHA service but invoices show the service provider to be M/s Parekh Marine Agencies and services provided were by a Clearing & Forwarding Agent. Denial of refund of ₹ 4,739.92 is unsustainable as goods exported were transported by the provider of GTA service and appellant had filed transport bills which indicate vehicle number and container number matching with the exports and bill of lading. Denial of refund of ₹ 3,552/- does not appear proper as record of invoices, export invoice and other documents filed indicate that invoices are in the name of M/s Sunrise Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. and other CHA i.e. Freightaids (India) Pvt. Ltd. acting as CHA and all the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious other charges, in terms of Notification No.17/2009-ST, dated 7.7.2009, being an exemption Notification issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, exempting specified taxable services received by an exporter goods and used for such export, from levy of service tax and entitling the exporter to seek refund of service tax incurred on such specified input services. The impugned order denied refund of this amount on the ground that the service provider in its invoices raised on the appellant had indicated that service tax was charged under BAS Support Service of Business or Commerce. The show cause notice asserts this and this assertion is reiterated in the primary and the impugned appellate order. Records of invoices furnished by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e received by the appellant would disentitle refund. Denial of refund of ₹ 10,154.96 does not therefore call for interference. 5. Refund of ₹ 4,335.29 stands denied on the ground that refund of this amount is claimed on CHA service but relevant invoices show the service provider to be M/s Parekh Marine Agencies and services provided were by a Clearing Forwarding Agent. For the same reason as recorded earlier, the refund of ₹ 4,335.29 also does not call for interference. 6. Refund of ₹ 4,739.92 is rejected on the ground that services incurred by the appellant is on GTA service but the appellant failed to produce consignment notes to support receipt of GTA service. That the goods exported were transported by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
