TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; Refund claim filed by the appellant under Notification No. 41/2007-ST in respect of the service tax paid by them for Goods Transport Agency services, documentation charges and Terminal Handling Charges (THC) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that refund claim for THC has been rejected on the ground that service provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken registration under the category of only one service refund claim can not be rejected. I have gone through one of the sample invoices provided by the learned counsel I find that it is not possible to make out which category the service provider has been registered. No evidence has been gathered to show that service tax of which refund claim was made was the service tax paid on the Business Auxi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to which service has been provided. In the absence of any specific detail the presumption would be that service provided is relating to CHA which is one of the services notified under Notification No. 41/2007. 5. It is also to be observed that THC was also collected by the CHA and in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary it is to be presumed that this amount was collect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given in the LR, learned counsel submitted that co-relation is possible since the factory invoice number is mentioned in the export invoice and ARE-1. With the help of ARE-1, export invoice and factory invoice and LR it is possible to correlate and come to the conclusion that LR produced for having paid service on GTA service is linked to the export goods. He also submits that original authority ....