SOPARIWALA EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I
LAWS(CE)-2015-5-10
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 06,2015

SOPARIWALA EXPORTS Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai -I Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANIL CHOUDHARY,J - (1.)THE Appellant has filed the present appeal against OIA No RBT/164/2011, dated 19 -4 -2011 whereby refund claimed filed by them under Notification No. (later renumbered as Notification No. 17/2009 -S.T.) in relation to services used for export purposes, has been partly rejected.
(2.)The facts involved in the present appeal are that the Appellant had availed Terminal Handling Service (claimed as "Port Service"), GTA services (export) and C&F agency services for export of their goods, and had accordingly filed various refund claims under Noti. 41/2007 -S.T., dated 6 -10 -2007 as amended, towards Service Tax paid on such Terminal Handling Charges (THC), GTA services (export) and CHA/C&F agency services.
1.1 That vide OIO dated 27 -8 -2009, THC (Port service) refund was rejected on the grounds that service providers were registered under either Business Auxiliary Service/Business Support Service or CHA service and not 'port service' and further that authorization by 'port authority' was not provided. GTA service refund was denied on the grounds that some portion of service was availed to bring empty containers from port/ICD to factory and then from factory to port. As such, inward movement GTA, was denied for refund. As regards CHA/CFA services, refund was denied on the grounds that details of services provided were not produced. Refund was also denied on services performed prior to exemption coming into force for specific categories specified later. The impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the views of the lower authority and rejected the refund claim. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by order of the first appellate authority.

Heard both sides and perused records.

(3.)THE Ld. Counsel for the Appellant also filed written submissions during the course of hearing. The grounds on which refund has been denied by the lower appellate authority vide the impugned order and the Appellant's sub -missions thereon, including decisions and circulars relied upon are as below: -
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.