2015 (2) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal filed against the rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 16-10-2007. An amount of Rs. 25,226/- was rejected relating to Port Service on the ground that the appellants have used only the Bill of Lading and not the copy of the invoice. Ld. Counsel states that initially the claim was rejected on the ground that M/s. APL (India) Pvt. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e name of the appellants and charged the same amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that M/s. MPRS Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is not authorized by the Port authority to carry out the handling activity and therefore they cannot issue the invoice relating to Port Service. 2. The ld. AR for the respondent reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 3. I have considere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is allowed. 4. In respect of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 67,747/- relating to GTA service, the appellants' claim is that they have not engaged any transporters for the same but entrusted the whole job to Custom House Agents. The CHA in turn has raised the bills for the transportation charges and as receiver of the said service they have in turn paid the service tax to the Government A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X