TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port service providers. Since records reveals that the claim of the appellant that the services provided by the service providers stated earlier were not authorized to provide port services and the evidences called for in the impugned notices such as documents to establish that the Cenvat credit was not availed not forthcoming from the records of the case, we do not find any merits in the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur refund claims for amounts of ₹ 35,771/-, 41,991/-, 9,578/- and 10,054/- under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. The refund claimed was in respect of service tax paid on services used for export of goods. The services used were transport of goods in containers by Rail and port services. The appellants were issued with various show cause notices such as show cause notices dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided by M/s. Eagle Maritime (P) Ltd., New Delhi, M/s. Oceanid Logistics (P) Ltd, New Delhi and M/s. DHL Lemier and Logistics (P) Ltd., New Delhi did not qualify to be treated as port services under the definition of port service provided under Section 65(82) of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellant preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The said appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem. She further contended that Notification No. 41/2007 was amended to increased time limit from 60 days to 06 months for filing refund. She further submitted case laws regarding extension of time limit for refund. She submitted a copy of case law in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported at 2014(304) ELT 660 (Del.). 4. Learned D.R. has supported th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
