9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. In case of appellant No. 2 the goods being exported are dye intermediates while exporting the dye intermediates, appellant uses Port Service, courier service, Goods Transport Agency Service, Custom House Agent service. They also claim refund of the tax paid on the said input services. Appellants had filed refund claims pertaining to the period January to March 2008 and April to June 2008 which were rejected on various grounds by the original authority and first appellate authority. The refund of service tax paid on the port services have been rejected on the ground that the invoices are of CHAs who are not authorized to provide terminal operator service within the port area. The appellant's contention is that they have assigned all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appellant No. 1 i.e. M/s. Amar International all the invoices are post 1-4-2008. Another objection in the case of CHA invoices relating to appellant No. 1 is that the export invoices' number is subsequently mentioned by hand and it is not printed one. As far as technical testing inspection service is concerned appellant has neither been able to produce any written agreement between the buyer and themselves nor produce details of any requirement stipulated in any domestic rules and regulations. 2. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned AR argued that CHA is not authorized to provide the services in the port area and therefore he could have not issued the invoices relating to "port services". In case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viders operating in the port area. It is not in dispute the goods were exported, were handled in the port area, terminal handling operation were carried out and service tax on such port services was paid which would have been carried out at the instances of CHA perhaps by some other service provider/authority and under the circumstances it will not be appropriate to deny the refund of the service tax paid on the port service, just because invoices are of CHA who is not authorized to provide port service. In respect of the courier service, I find the objection is only that in the invoices issued by the courier agency service, export invoice number & IEC code of the appellant are not mentioned. There is no dispute that the details of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
