9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factory to ICD, it is seen that Notification 41/2007 did not cover the same for the purpose of refund and therefore refund thereof is not admissible. The transportation of the goods between the ICD and the port was clearly covered as a specified service under Notification 41/2007-ST. The remaining issues relating to debit notes and invoices are also covered in favour of the appellant vide the J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26/- under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was denied. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, while going through the appeal papers it is seen that refund has been disallowed on the following grounds. (a) The assessee submitted debit notes, invoices which were not the proper documents in terms of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. (b) The documents evidencing payment of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Adjudicating Authority. The debit notes contained all the necessary details. The inland haulage charges were paid for transportation of goods from factory to the inland container depot and the other charges mentioned in para above related to transportation of goods from ICD to the Port and port services and that the classification of the service was not required to be questioned by it. The b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2007-ST. The remaining issues are also covered in favour of the appellant vide the Judgments of CESTAT mentioned above. 6. In light of the foregoing, we partly allow the appeal to the extent that only the amount of refund pertaining to the internal haulage charges between the factory and the ICD is not admissible and the rest is admissible to the appellant. (Operative portion of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
