TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Charge - Bill of Lading Charges - denial on the ground that these are not port services - Held that: - the services received at port by the appellant is covered under Port Services and it is admitted fact that the Terminal Handling Charges and Bill of lading Charges has been paid at the port by the appellant, therefore, the same are covered under port services - refund allowed. Refund claim - Customs House Agency Service - denial on the ground that the said service is not covered under the Notification - Held that: - this Tribunal in the case of Sopariwala Exports [2015 (9) TMI 940 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that the Customs House Agency service received by the appellant for export of goods is entitled for refund claim - refund allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et out. In that circumstance, the refund claim cannot be denied to the appellant. The refund claim sought to be denied on the ground that in the invoices, the address of Karnal unit of the appellant has been mentioned. I find that the appellant has produced the certificate issued by the service provider that they have given wrong address of their Karnal unit instead of their unit located at Gurgaon and certified that the services has been provided at their Gurgaon unit, therefore, merely on that ground the invoices have been issued in the name of the Karnal Unit, the refund claim cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/34-37/2011 - A/61241-61244/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been paid by the appellant and movement of containers from other than place of removal not covered. I find that in the impugned orders, the ld. Commissioner (A) held that the appellant is able to co-relate with the services of the transportation for used in export of goods, therefore, the allegation that the condition of Notification are not fulfilled is not sustainable. Moreover, the appellant has produced the certificate for payment of service tax on transportation service and the same has been borne by the appellant. Further, I find that the goods are required to be exported in the container only and empty containers are to be transported from port to their factory and after stuffing of the goods in the containers and the containers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant for export of goods is entitled for refund claim, therefore the refund claim cannot be denied on Customs House Agency Service as under: 6.1 As regards CHA/C F service, sufficient co-relation was demonstrated during the course of hearing, that the export consignment, as per shipping bill and the service provided in this regard are verifiable and co-relatable on the face of document in form of Shipping Bill Number, Invoice Number, Container Number etc. and as such, the ground on which such refund is denied, does not appear to be proper. As regards shipping bill showing name of different CHA as compared to the actual service provider, it is a practice in vogue to seek services by way outsourcing by certain shipping lines/CHAs/freig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be rejected on the ground that the appellant has claimed drawback on specified services. As the drawback claim does not include the service received availed by the assessee in the course of export of goods, therefore, relying on the decision of Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) , I hold that the refund claim cannot be denied on the ground that the appellant is claiming drawback claim. (E) Conditions of Rule 4(A) of Service Tax Rules are not fulfilled: The refund claim sought to be denied on the ground that the invoices issued by the services provider has not having a details as per Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim. To that effect, the Ld. AR relied on the CBEC Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|