9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AX, UDAIPUR VERSUS M/S. ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES (P) LTD. [ 2019 (1) TMI 73 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon ble High Court has held it is an admitted fact of the record that the services towards terminal and other handling services were availed by the assessee within the port area, in connection with export of the goods. Thus, irrespective of classification of service, since the same are provided within the port for export of goods, the benefit of refund should be available under the head port services in terms of notification dated 6-10-2017. Thus, registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 41/07 - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority vide O.I.O order allowed part of refund of 68,231/- to the appellant but rejected the refund of 1,04,802 on the grounds that services like THC, BC charges, handling, LDD. TSC. documentation charges are not specified service under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. Aggrieved by the order of the original authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,04,802/-. Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim of Rs. 4,369/- against the service tax paid by NSL Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, M/s Interport Global Logistics, Mumbai and M/s Sahib Cargo Logistics, Ludhiana. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pancy on the part of service provider has to be dealt separately with the service provider only. He further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to availing of service for the purpose of export as well as payment of service tax thereon. It is only that the service provider was not registered under CHA/port service. 6. He further submitted that the registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of exemption under Notification no. 41/2007 in support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of the Union of India Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd- 2019 (20) GSTL 21 (Raj.). 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the refund rightly be rejected on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to availing of the services for the purpose of export as well as payment of service tax thereon. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Union of India Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd cited (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "3. The order dated 7-7-2010 was challenged before the CESTAT by the respondent assessee on various grounds but the Learned CESTAT while considering the Notification No. 41/2007 gave finding that it is an admitted fact of the record that the services towards terminal and other handling services were availed by the assessee within the port area, in connection with export of the goods. Thus, irrespective of classification of service, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
