9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 06.10.2007 - refund claim denied by the authorities below on the disputed services namely, inland Haulage charges, Freight outward charges, BL charges and CHA charges is not in conformity with the provisions of the Notification dated 06.10.2007 and to that extent the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Refund claim - fumigation charges - denial on the ground that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC Insulated Wires and Cables, falling under Chapter 72 and 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed the refund applications, claiming refund of ₹ 1,91,860/- in respect of service tax paid on va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the port for exportation of the goods should be considered for refund benefit in terms of Notification dated 06.10.2007. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.), Shivam Exports vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2016- TIOL- 376 CESTAT-Del., Suncity Art Exports and Other vs. CCE, Jaipur II repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the service providers. However, the refund benefit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the services are not confirming to the definition of Port Service. I find from the decision cited by the ld. Advocate that irrespective of the taxable service, if the same are provided within the port for exportation of goods, the refund claim can be processed in terms of the Notification No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
