9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant entered into a contract with Gopalpur Port for loading of the goods at the stockyard of the appellant, transporting them via the weighbridge to Gopalpur Port where the goods were to be stacked in the port area, protected by turpoulin and loaded in barges for transport and loading to the vessel at port of anchorage for export. The appellant exported 50,200 MTs. of Ilmenite through Gopalpur Port in Orissa. Gopalpur Port issued a consolidated invoice for the transaction in which they charged service tax at the rate of 12.24%. After conclusion of the transaction, the appellant filed refund claim with the original authority for the amount of service tax paid. There was confusion in respect of the correct legal provision under which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable time limit specified therein. He also submitted that the appellants have not availed cenvat credit of such service tax paid to the Gopalpur Port. On specific query from the Bench, whether refund of the amount has been claimed by Gopalpur Port, the ld.Advocate submitted that the appellant as well as Gopalpur Port, fall within the jurisdiction of the same Central Excise Authorities and as such both the agencies could not have claimed the refund of the same tax. 5. The ld.D.R. for the Revenue justified the impugned order of the rejection of the refund claims. He referred to the invoice issued by Gopalpur Port and submitted that the major part of the activity has been done within the port area and relating to stevedoring activity; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt area. Transport and loading of goods on the vessel is in the nature of stevedoring and since this has been performed within the port area, service tax is liable under the category of "port services". Accordingly, the refund claims filed have been rejected. 9. A perusal of the invoices issued by Gopalpur Port to the appellant indicates charging of service tax at the rate of 12.24%. The category is not indicated in the invoices. But from the activities carried out, it is seen that the export goods were to be stacked in the port area, covered by tarpaulin and ultimately, transported and loaded to the vessel at the port of anchorage. All these activities have been carried out in relation to the export cargo. 10. A perusal of the definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, there is merit in the claim of the appellant that the Service Tax liability is not attracted in respect of export transactions. However, the matter needs verification at the adjudicating authority's end. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to verify the particulars submitted by the appellant in this regard and satisfy himself that the amounts collected by the appellant pertain to handling of export cargo. The appellant is also directed to co-operate with the department for verification of the documents. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law". 12. By following the above decision of the Tribunal, we come to the conclusion that the activity carried o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
