9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scussed by the learned Tribunal in Paragraph 5(i) of the impugned order. Though the Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the appeal on 31.01.2019 on four substantial questions of law, the only question pressed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue is Question No.(a), which reads as follows:- "(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of the part of the refund claim relating to invoices for port services?" 2. The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.5(i) of the order dated 01.05.2018 reads as follows. "5(i). On the issue of invoices issued by M/s.Natvar Parikh Industries relating to port services,we find that the matter is fully covered by the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is distinguished from the case in hand. In the event, that part of the impugned order rejecting the refund claims relating to invoices for port services issued by M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries is set aside and appeal on that score is allowed. So ordered. (ii) Amount of refund claimed for services availed of commission agent, rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld in the impugned order, is not pressed by the Ld.Advocate and hence we do not interfere with the impugned order on that score. So ordered. (iiii) On the issue of the exact period of refund, we find there is some confusion. The SCN produced by the appellant in para 4(iii) indicates that the amount of Rs. 10,23,976/- is related to export clearances made prior to 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to specified taxable services used for export of goods - Notification No.41/2007-S.T., dated 06-10-2007 amended In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.41/2007-Service Tax, dated the 6th October 2007 which was published in the Gazette of Indiam Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) Vide number G.S.R.645(E) dated the 6th October 2007, namely:- In the said notification, in the schedule after Sr.No.12, and the entires relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:- (1) (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, it is clear that M/s.Natvar Parikh Industries Limited., is not the provider of 'port services' and have not discharged the service tax liability. In as much as the Registration No. Of the Port has been indicated in the bill M/s.Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd., in no way could have discharged the service tax liability. In the instant case, Chennai Port Trust have rendered the said service and paid the service tax as they are holders of the above said Service Tax Registration and not M/s.Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd., in any case. Accordingly, only based on the invoices/bills as envisaged in Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 raised by M/s.Chennai Port Trust, the appellant is entitled to claim refund of service tax on 'Por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
