9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices - Held that: - the issue stands covered by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2015 (9) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it stands held that description of Port Service given in the Notification No.41/2007 being different from the description of ‘Port Service’ defined in Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be adopted as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the export of their product, in terms of Notification Nos.40/2007 dated 17/09/2007, 41/2007 dated 06/10/2007 17/2009 dated 07/07/2009. The said notifications provide for refund of Service Tax paid on various taxable services utilized by exporter, for the export of their final product. The reasons adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denial of the said refund claim are being reproduced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch service provider by the port or any person authorized by the port is a mandatory provision. In the absence of such authorization the services provided cannot be treated as taxable services. 6.3 In the instant case, I find that on scrutiny of claims, it was found that the assessee has received services from various service provides and on the basis of their invoices, he has claimed the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such certificate, the exemption from payment of service tax by way of refund has rightly been denied by the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. 3. As is seen from above, the only reasons adopted by the Lower Authorities for denial of the refund claim is that the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the Port Service Provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
