9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For Courier charges, (IEC) code number of the exporter has not mentioned in the invoice by the courier services provider and with regard to the GTAs, the appellant has not produced the required documents for entertaining the refund claim. 2. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 3. Considering the fact that in the case of Terminal Handling Charges, Other Port Services, Fumigation Expenses, the refund claim has denied on the ground that they are not port services, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim. 4. The said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s SRF reported in 2015-TIOL-2241-CESTAT-DEL, wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 1.1 Two services, namely port services and the airport services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them to provide a particular service. 1.4 In order to remove these difficulties, the definitions of the relevant taxable services are being amended to clarify that all services provided entirely within the port/airport premises would fall under these services. Further, specific authorization from the port/airport authority would now not be a pre-condition for the levy. 8. The above clarification throws light on difficulties faced by exporters to produce documents in accordance with section 65(105)(zn) as there is no procedure of issuing permission letters or authorization to such service providers. The board in its circular dated 12.03.2009 has clarified that granting refund does not require the verification of registration of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission of the learned counsel. I find that the learned adjudicating authority has considered the other corroborative evidence such as, the invoices includes particulars like type of fabric, style code of garment exported, buyer name, code identify and airway bill of shipping bill number. Therefore, the correlation is clearly established with these details. 7. As the issue has already been settled in this Tribunal in the case of M/s Madura Garments Exports Ltd. (Supra), therefore, I hold that the agreement is not requirement and the same is only procedural requirement for the same and in the case where there is no agreement, the appellant cannot be asked to produce the agreement, therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
