TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n submission, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. Hemlines Textile Exports Pvt. Limited, a manufacturer of made-up articles under Chapter 63, filed two claims for refund of service tax paid on taxable services utilised for export of goods, in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. The claims were partly rejected vide OIO dated 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Act, 2010 on 8-5-2010, the definition of Port service has been amended and now no authorization from the airport/Port authority would be required for taxing these services. Quoting the DO letter No. F. No. 334/1/2010-TRU, dated 26-2-2010, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amendment has clarified the coverage of these services and there is no change in the scope of the definition. It was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be considered as port service. The reliance of the Commissioner on the amended definition and the clarification issued by the Board is not correct. 5. On the other hand, in the written submissions the respondent submitted that in the Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. there is no condition that service tax paid on port services cannot be refunded on the ground that authorisation of port is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice was not really provided by the persons who issued the receipts but they received the service on behalf of the respondents. In view of the clear observation that service has been provided by the service providers authorised by the Port, impugned order has to be sustained. In any case, rejection of refund claimed by the respondents would amount to reassessment of the service at the receiver's ....