9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges, repo charges and Bill of lading charges and haulage charges are available to the exporters. Similarly in respect of Service Tax paid on the transportation services for movement of empty containers from the port area back to the factory was considered to be a service in respect of which the Service Tax paid on the same was available as refund to the assessee in terms of notification No. 41/07. Production of proper invoices and debit notes - Held that: - the decision in the case of M/s. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur [2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] relied upon where it was held that if the documents produced are debit notes and giving all the details and particulars as requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Service Tax paid on the terminal handling charges, inland haulage, bill of lading charges, repo charges etc. The refund claims stand denied by the lower authorities on the ground that such services are not specified services inasmuch as the same cannot be treated to be port services. Further, the objection was raised to the effect that service providers are not registered under port services but were registered under different categories and no proof of deposit of tax by the service provider stand produced by the appellant. It was also observed by the lower authorities, that the appellants have not produced proper invoices raised by the service provider and the debit notes produced by them are not prescribed documents. Accordingly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of M/s. Suncity Art Exporters & others. 4. As such, we find that all the issues involved in all the appeals are decided in favour of the assessee by above referred decision. However, we are informed that in the case of M/s. Satyam Enterprises, a part of the refund claim to the extent of ₹ 23,956/- (Rupees Twentythree thousand nine hundred fifty-six only) stand denied on the ground that the goods were not exported by the assessee themselves but were exported through merchant exporters in which case, refund cannot be granted to the appellant. Learned advocate appearing for the said appellant submits that he is not challenging the said part of the impugned order passed in the case of M/s. Satyam Enterprises. 5. In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
