9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected claim of Rs. 8,890/- in respect of CHA service, refund claim of Rs. 1,33,351/- in respect of port service, refund claim of Rs. 78,268/- in respect of warehousing service and refund claim of Rs. 92,125/- in respect of banking services. The refund claim of Rs. 8,890/- in respect of CHA service was rejected on the ground of time bar, as according to the department the application for refund had been received on 26/6/12 beyond the limitation period of one year from the date of net export order. The refund claim of Rs. 1,33,351/- in respect of port service was rejected on the ground that this amount represents the service tax paid on the water front royalty charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of service tax of Rs. 78,268/- on the warehousing charges, the service of warehousing had been availed by the CHA on behalf of the appellant and CHA in his bills raised to the appellant had charged the amount of warehousing charges enclosing the invoices of the warehousing service provider, that while the invoices of the warehousing service provider do not mention the shipping bill, the bill issued by the CHA, mention the shipping bill numbers and, therefore, it is wrong to say that the warehousing charges cannot be linked to shipping bills under which the goods had been exports, that as regards the refund claim of Rs. 91,125/- of the service tax paid on the bank commission charges, though the certificate issued by the bank -does not men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by Adani Port show the payment of service tax on the amounts called 'water front royalty' and 'handling charges' under port services. When the department has accepted service tax on these amounts under port services, at the time of considering refund of the service tax paid on port services to the service recipient, the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities cannot seek to reopen the assessment of service tax at the end of the service provider. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,33,351/- of service tax on the port services on the ground that there is no relationship between the port service and royalty charges, is not correct. 8. As regards the refund of service tax of Rs. 78,268/- on godown rent, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
