Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (3) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal No. 954 of 2009 - Final Order No. 51002/2016 - Dated:- 3-3-2016 - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Meena, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- The present appeal is against order dated 04/09/2009 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of carton yarn. They filed a claim for refund of service tax in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 for the period July 2008 to September 2008. The refund is claimed on the ground that they have paid service tax on various services received by them and us .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . It is claimed that from the nature of service received by the appellants it is clear that the Terminal Handling Charges are only Port Charges which are covered under Port Services, accordingly eligible for refund. 3. The learned AR contended that Notification No. 41/2007-ST specifies the taxable services which are eligible for exemption. If the taxable services are not falling under any of the classification mentioned in the Schedule of the notification, the exemption and consequently refund cannot be granted to the appellant. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The point for decision is the eligibility of the appellant for exemptions/refund of service tax paid by them with reference to export of their g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ices and any procedural infirmity in documentation should not be held against a substantial benefit, if otherwise eligible, to the appellant. In SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur - I reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 980 (Tri. - Del.) it was held that the services involved are connected to export of goods and the appellant had paid service tax on such services. The nature of services if are to be considered as Port Services, the refund should not be rejected. The objection of the Revenue that the service provider should have paid service tax under Port Services was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the exporter should not be unduly burdened with a condition to establish that the service provider was registered under Port Services. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates