9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorization from port authorities, I find that these issues stand concluded in favour of the appellant vide Board Circular dt. 12.3.09 as well as various case laws as referred to and relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 187 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and Fibre Bond Industries [2014 (3) TMI 372 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. As such, I hold that appellant is entitled to refund claim on THC services. As regards refund claim on GTA services, It is rightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, that it is almost impossible to mention export invoice de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had availed Terminal Handling Service (THC for short) (claimed as Port Service). GTA services (export) and CHA/C F agency services for export of their goods, and had accordingly filed several refund claims under Notification No. 17/09-ST dt. 7.7.09 readwith Noti 41/07-ST dt. 6.10.07 as amended, towards Service Tax paid on such THC, GTA services (export) and CHA/C F agency services. 2.1 That vide Order-in-Original dt. 27.8.09, for THC (Port service) refund was rejected on the grounds that service providers were registered under either Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Service or CHA service and not 'port service' and further that authorization by Port Authority was not provided. On GTA service, refund was denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port, and (v) as regards CHA/CFA service, it was held that the claim is correct and allowable, subject to verification directing the lower authority to verify and allow accordingly. Thus, the appeal was allowed in part. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant made oral and written submissions during the course of hearing. The grounds on which refund has been denied by the lower appellate authority in the impugned order and the Appellant's submissions thereon, including decisions and circulars relied upon are herein summarized:- Nature of Service Ground in impugned order to reject refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So long as nature of service is one of the specified service categories, irrespective of registration category, refund must be granted to the Appellant. 1. Board Circualr no. 112/6/2009-ST dt. 12.3.09 (para VII) 2. CST, Ahmedabad vs. Riddhi Sidhi GlucoBiols Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 180 (T-Amd) 3. Fibre Bond Industries - ST/337/10 4. CCE vs. Hemlines Textiles Exports P. Ltd. 2012 (279) ELT 425 5. Deversons Industries P. Ltd. 2014(33) STR 197 (T-Ahmd) 6. Dishaman Pharmaceuticals Chemicals Ltd. - Appeal No. E/05 and 14 of 2010 7. Cbay Systems (I) P. Ltd. 2011 (21) STR 668 (T-MUM) GTA Service a. Freight included inward movement of empty container from port/I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court. This being the settled legal position in this regard, I hold that the denial of refund on this ground is not sustainable and therefore required to be set aside. As a result, refund in this regard becomes admissible to the Appellant. 6.2 As regards refund of THC on the ground that invoice was raised by shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorization from port authorities, I find that these issues stand concluded in favour of the appellant vide Board Circular dt. 12.3.09 as well as various case laws as referred to and relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
