TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urposes, 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.41/07-ST dt.6.10.07 as amended, towards Service Tax paid on such Terminal Handling Charges (THC), GTA services (export) and CHA/C&F agency services. 2.1 That vide OIO dt.27.8.09, 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant, cannot result in denial of refund. B. Authorization from port is not mandatory for service to qualify as "port service". Even CHA/Shipping line providing THC/port service, is eligible for refund to exporter - appellant C. Notification nowhere stipulates about "service provider being registered under specified service category" for eligibility of refund D. So long as "nature of service" is one of the specified service categories, irrespective of registration of service provider, refund must be granted to the Appellant 1. Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dt.12.3.09 (Para VII) 2. CST, Ahmedabad V/s. Riddhi Siddhi GlucoBiols Ltd. 2012(25) STR 180(T-Ahmd) 3. Fibre Bond Industries 2014-TIOL-145-CESTAT-MUM 4. CC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e details of export invoice, is a procedural error at the end of service provider, which cannot result in denial of refund to exporter C. In any case, service provider's invoice mentions "container number" LR and vehicle number, which can be collectively co-related with BL and SB, conclusively proving export having taken place D. Requirement of law is to prove exports, which is otherwise proved by independent evidences, correlated the substantive requirement stands fulfilled 1. Board Circular No.112/6/2009-ST dt.12.3.09 (Para VII) 2. Khatau Narbheram & Co. 2012-TIOL-764-CESTAT- KOL 3. Ramdev Food Products P. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-AHM 4. CCE V/s. Sopariwala Exports P. Ltd. 2013-TIOL-656-CESTAT-AHM 5. The Ld. Represe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of consignments for the exporters. In fact, similar situation was examined in the case of ADF Foods (supra) and refund was granted. As such, refund in respect of CHA and C&F agent service also is held allowable to the Appellant. 6.2 As regards refund on GTA services, it is the Appellants case that the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice, in bringing out new ground for denial of refund. Be that as it may, the impugned order on one hand allows refund on inward transport of empty container from port/ICD to factory, to be further used for stuffing and exporting goods, at the same time, rejects refund on the ground that export invoice details are not mentioned on the face of the LR. 6.3 It is rightly subm....