9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the charge was named as “Terminal Handling Charges”, tax liability was in fact, discharged under port services which is one of the specified services under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. Without revising classification of the service at the end of service provider, denial of refund of service tax paid under the category of port service at the receiver’s end is not correct. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T) Mrs. Avani Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.N. Joshi, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER On the ground that certain discrepancies were noticed on scrutiny of refund of service tax amounting to ₹ 70,006/- granted to the appellant, the Commissioner in exercise of powers vested in him u/s. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 issued show cause notice requiring to show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le as refund on the invoices of one CHA. 3. Heard both sides. In this case even though show cause notice has been issued for refund on four grounds, the Commissioner has discussed only one ground viz. port services. His observation is that the amount was charged under the heading Terminal Handling Charges which was included only after issue of Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was for Terminal Handling charges which is not a specified service, is not correct. In any case, Terminal Handling was not a separate service during the relevant time nor at this time. It falls under the category of port services only. Moreover, it is quite possible that Terminal Handling Charges are collected by CHA/Service Provider of the appellant and paid to persons who actually did not work. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
