TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the service provider under the category of “port services” - Held that: - It is by now a well settled proposition that THC, bill of lading charges, documentation charges, etc. are covered under port services and tax paid on such services are eligible for refund under the said notification - The Original Authority should verify the supporting documents and sanction the amount - refund allowed by way of remand. Rejection of ₹ 84,558/- on the ground of limitation - lower authorities held that the claim was filed beyond 60 days from the last date of the quarter during which the goods were exported out of the country - Held that: - The Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs Pacific Leather Finishers, [2016 (2) TMI 727 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysis services were rejected on the ground that the appellants did not file supporting evidences in terms of the said notification - Held that: - appellants have supporting documents linking up the service tax payment with the export cargo - refund allowed subject to verification. In respect of services availed from M/s. Liladhar Passo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. as Customs House Agent, the claim was rejected on the ground that the details required for processing claim is not available in the documents submitted by the appellants - Held that: - the appellants have supporting evidence to indicate that the charges paid by CHA are with reference to their export cargo only - The documents can be linked to export made by the appellants - refund all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the findings of the lower authorities, ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the claims were rejected without proper examination and on invalid grounds. The service tax paid on various input services are rightly claimed as refund in terms of the above notification. Ld. Counsel also relies on the various decided cases in support of his submission. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeals records. 5. It is noticed that the refund claims were rejected on various grounds. These grounds are examined taking into consideration the applicable legal provisions, facts as submitted by the appellants and applicable case laws. 6. Amounts of ₹ 1,03,580/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Gujarat High Court in the case of AIA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 1236 (Gujarat). Considering the ratio adopted in these decisions, I find that the appellants are eligible for refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges, documentation charges for handling of cargo inside the port before the export out of the country. The Original Authority should verify the supporting documents and sanction the amount. 8. An amount of ₹ 84,558/- was rejected on the ground of limitation. It was held by the lower authorities that the claim was filed beyond 60 days from the last date of the quarter during which the goods were exported out of the country. Here, I note that as per proviso 1 (c) of notification no.41/2007-ST r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms held that such refund can be filed only upon payment of sales tax and accordingly such payment of tax only gives rise to right to claim the refund of SAD from customs authority. The said decision of the High Court was maintained by the Hon ble Supreme Court by dismissing Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue 2016(337) E.L.T A 102 (SC). The conditions mentioned in the notification are to be read harmoniously so that they will not result in conflict with each other. As the refund will rise only on payment of service tax, the claims filed within the period of limitation calculated from such payment, should be considered as filed in time. 9. The Original Authority also rejected some part of the claims on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as the appellants goods were exported and the appellants suffered service tax on the specified services, they are entitled for refund. 12. Service tax paid on inspection and certification service and technical testing and analysis services were rejected on the ground that the appellants did not file supporting evidences in terms of the said notification. It is noted that the inspection and certification service was availed by them in terms of the written agreement, which required pre-export inspection and certification of the export cargo. The purchase contract was also submitted by the appellants. Similarly, for testing and analysis service, the bills raised by the service provider indicate that their registered office address is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
