2016 (7) TMI 1279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , for the Respondent. ORDER M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/37/BEL/2011, dated 30-5-2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III which upheld the order of original authority denying refund of tax paid on charges levied by customs house agent towards documentation service, DEPB/DEEC formalities and transportation of goods to port included .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g Rs. 1,06,652. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorized Representative. There is no dispute that appellant did effect exports during the period for which claim for refund was submitted and that the tax liability on the input services had been discharged. Appellant routes all export formalities through licenced customs house agents who provide end-to-end services and bil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... justification for vivisecting this amount as reimbursable expenses for denial of refund claim. The appellant is eligible to be refund of this amount of Rs. 60,821 connected with documentation charges. 4. On the issue of non-admissibility of claim for refund of tax discharged on transportation services, the first appellate authority cited that lorry receipts were not made available. Appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X