TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laims were filed on account of fumigation services availed by the appellants and the copy of the written agreement have not been provided to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the appellants are required to provide a copy of the agreement for such specified services. To examine the issue, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider written agreement availed by the appellants - matter on remand. With regard to the business auxiliary services, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the exporter has not provided agreement or contract or any other documents requiring the commission agent located outside India has provided the service to the exporter in relation to the sale of goods - Held that: - the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of service tax, therefore, the invoice and lorry receipt is sufficient for claim of refund - refund allowed. Denial of Refund for the services namely, terminal handling charges, documentation charges, bill of lading charges - denial on the ground that the services received by the appellant, namely, terminal handling charges, documentation charges, bill of lading charges are the services in the nature of logistics services, therefore, they are covered under the business support service and are not entitled for availment of the benefit of N/N. 41/2007-ST as business support services are not eligible for refund claim - Held that: - the service tax paid by the service provider on the services availed by the appellants are at port, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were denied to the appellants by the authorities below. The appellants filed refund claims under Notification No.41/07-ST dt.6.10.2007, wherein the exporter is entitled to claim refund on export of the goods of the specified services received used in relation to the export of the goods and the said refund claim as per procedure prescribed under the said notification. 3. I find that the refund claims were denied on the various reasons which are dealt with separately: (a) Refund claim was denied on the ground that the said goods have been exported and drawback is allowed on the export of goods. 4. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellants have claimed drawback on export of the goods, therefore, they are not entitled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement availed by the appellants thereafter allow the refund claims to the appellants. (c) With regard to the business auxiliary services, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the exporter has not provided agreement or contract or any other documents requiring the commission agent located outside India has provided the service to the exporter in relation to the sale of goods. 8. I find that the authorities below have not understood the true spirit of the notification. In fact, the notification specifies that any other documents which means if the appellant provides the copy of the invoice, for the commission paid, the same will serve the condition of the notification. Therefore, if the invoice of the commission agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt cited by the ld.Advocate that different services provided within the port shall merit consideration for refund in terms of the notification referred supra. With regard to the CHA service, we find that the service providers are duly recognised by the Customs authorities for providing such service which is evident from certificates issued in favour of service provider by the Customs Department. Hence, service provided by the CHA should also merit consideration for refund in terms of Notification dated 6.10.2007............ 10. I find that the service provider has mentioned the shipping bill number in the invoice an the service provider has been recognized as service provider and has paid service tax on the service, in that circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rival contentions, I find that the refund was denied to the Appellant mainly on various procedural grounds as stated hereinabove. Be that as it may, as regards refund for THC on the grounds such as invoice being raised by shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorization from port authorities, I find that such issues stand concluded in favour of the appellant 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. and Fibre Bond Industries (supra). As such, denial of refund claim on THC services does not appear to be correct and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
