9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, Member (Judicial) Per: Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of the respondents on port services was allowed by setting aside the Order-in-Original. 2. The issue involved in this case is that whether the respondent is entitled for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dt. 6.10.2007 as ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal of the respondent. Aggrieved from the same, the Revenue is before me. 4. The learned DR submitted that the impugned order is not proper and legal. He further submitted that in this case the invoices were issued by the party who has actually paid the service tax and the party who has actually provided services has not raised the invoice. Hence in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame claimed by the Appellant as Handling of Container will not bar the Appellant from claiming refund. Further the refund claim of Port Services of Rs.52,813/- claimed by the Appellant have been rejected on the grounds that the documents have been found invalid. Payment of Service Tax is not disputed. The dispute is that the service provider is one Agency and the Service Tax stated to be paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. The Commissioner (Appeal) has dealt the issue in detail and I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and within the provisions of law. Hence, the impugned order is legal and proper. Accordingly, I have no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced in cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
