9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir finished products. The appellants on 05.06.2008 filed a refund claim for 1,73,033/-, in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 for the quarter ending 31.03.2008 in respect of service tax paid on services used for export of their finished goods. The department observed that the refund claimed against the bills issued by M/s NSL Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai & M/s Sahib Cargo Logistics, Ludhiana was in respect of Customs House Agent Service, that M/s Hind Terminals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai had paid service tax on Factory stuffing charges and the registration No. & ST No. had not been mentioned on the bills; that refund claimed against the bills issued by M/s Interport Global Logistics, Mumbai was in respect of Cargo Handling Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant applied for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,73,033/- for the quarter ending March, 2008. He further submitted that the Revenue instead of sanctioning the refund claim, issued the show cause notice dated 16.01.2009 proposing to deny the refund of Rs. 1,04,802/- out of the total amount. Vide Order-in-Original dated 18.12.2009 as affirmed by the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2011, the refund amounting to Rs. 1,00,433/- was rejected on the ground that the service tax paid on Terminal Handling Charges, demurrage charges, total logistic solution, BL Charges and documentation charges, nomination charges, etc. are not covered under port service and therefore are not covered by exemption under Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been rejected only on the ground that the service tax paid on Terminal Handling Charges, demurrage charges, total logistic solution, BL Charges and documentation charges, nomination charges are not covered under port services and therefore exemption provided under Notification No. 41/07 dated 06.10.2007 are not applicable. 9. Further, I note that CBEC's vide Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 has clarified this issue, the relevant portion is reproduced here in below: "Notification No. 41/2007 provides exemption by way of refund from specified taxable services used for export of goods. Granting refund to exporters, on taxable services that he receives and uses for export do not require verification of registration certificate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, the CESTAT held that in view of the factual position, the assessee is eligible for refund of Rs. 16,72,923/- 4. In our the finding recorded by the Learned CESTAT is based upon factual aspect of the matter and therefore, no substantial questions of law emerges for consideration in this regard." 11. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of the Rajasthan in the case of Union of India Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd cited (Supra) I am of the considered opinion that registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 41/07, hence, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any as per law. (Order pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
