9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Having heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant/ assessee and ld. DR for the respondent/ Revenue at the stage of considering the stay application, as the issue falls within a narrow compass, with the consent of the respective parties I dispose of the appeal itself and do so after waiving pre-deposit. 2. The appellant is the assessee. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er availing service of CHA's in respect of exported goods; the fact of export is established from copies of the shipping bill and other export documents; and the exports were during 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. This order also found that the application for refund was filed within time. 4. After grant of refund which was realised by the assessee, on examination of the issue Revenue assumed that out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable in respect of terminal handling charges, the service used by the assessee for export of its goods. Eventually the order was passed directly recovery of Rs. 47,262/- besides interest and penalties thereon. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was rejected. Hence the present appeal. 5. Notification No. 17/2009-ST is an exemption Notification issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 65(82) as meaning any service rendered within a port or other port in any manner. 6. On a true and fair construction of the relevant entry at Sl. No. 2 of the table under exemption Notification No. 41/2007-ST, the inference is compelling that any service provided in relation to port services in a port, in any manner to an exporter and where such service is used for export is exempted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ously, that terminal handling charges when provided within the port do not fall under port services vide the Notification No. 41/2007-ST. This conclusion of the adjudicating authority which found resonance in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), is in my considered view erroneous and proceeds on a fallacious interpretation of the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-ST; and I hold so for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
