9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order dated 18/21.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC Insulated Wires and Cables, falling under Chapter 72 and 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed the refund applications, claiming refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant submits that various taxable services used within the port for exportation of the goods should be considered for refund benefit in terms of Notification dated 06.10.2007. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.), Shivam Exports vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2016- TIOL- 376 CESTAT-Del., S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re used for export of goods and payments made to the service providers. However, the refund benefit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the services are not confirming to the definition of Port Service. I find from the decision cited by the ld. Advocate that irrespective of the taxable service, if the same are provided within the port for exportation of goods, the refund claim can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
