Appellant succeeds on Port Services charges, Service tax refund, and cleaning activity; technical inspection claim dismissed.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant for issues related to charges under Port Services and cleaning activity, subject to verification of the certificate by the Original Authority. The appeal was allowed concerning the rejection of Service tax refund and cleaning activity but dismissed regarding the technical inspection and certification services as the appellant did not pursue that part of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of Service tax refund on various charges under Port Services.
2. Non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services.
3. Non-submission of proper invoice.
4. Cleaning activity not meeting the conditions of exemption Notification.
5. Rejection of Service Tax paid on technical inspection and certification services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a Service tax refund amounting to Rs. 61,893 for the period from 1.10.2007 to 31.12.2007. The grounds for rejection included charges like THC charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, and repo charges not being covered under Port Services due to service providers being registered under a different category. Additionally, proof of deposition of tax under port services was not produced. The Ld. Advocate referred to previous judgments by CESTAT to challenge these rejections, citing precedents like Shivam Exports & Ors., SRF Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, and Suncity Art Exports & Ors.

2. Regarding the cleaning activity, the appellant argued that the service was related to fumigation of export containers, crucial for making exports. They contended that fumigation was not taxable as per a Circular by the Board dated 12.01.2011 and presented a certificate issued by the Competent Authority. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the arguments based on the precedents mentioned earlier and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

3. However, concerning the cleaning activity specifically, as the appellant submitted the certificate for the first time before the Tribunal, it was decided that the Original Authority should verify the certificate. If found in order, the refund would be granted to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant did not pursue the refund on the ground related to technical inspection and certification services, leading to the dismissal of that part of the appeal.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of based on the above considerations, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant for the issues related to charges under Port Services and cleaning activity, subject to verification of the certificate by the Original Authority. The aspect regarding technical inspection and certification services was dismissed as not pursued by the appellant during the proceedings.

---