2015 (10) TMI 2230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....R. Sharma, A.R. ORDER Per Justice G. Raghuram The Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur vide primary adjudication order dated 21.1.2012 and the ld. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Jaipur vide the impugned order dated 16.1.2014 concurrently disallowed the appellant s claim of Rs. 1,35,866.17. Hence the appeal. 2. The appellant is a merchant exporter and is registered for s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exporter goods and used for such export, from levy of service tax and entitling the exporter to seek refund of service tax incurred on such specified input services. The impugned order denied refund of this amount on the ground that the service provider in its invoices raised on the appellant had indicated that service tax was charged under BAS & Support Service of Business or Commerce. The show ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Section 65. Since the concurrent findings by the authorities below that in the invoices of the service provider service tax was charged under BAS or Support Service of Business or Commerce is contrary to the facts on record and services received by the appellant clearly fall within the ambit of terminal handling charges, the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,13,114/-. 4. Refund of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rding Agent. For the same reason as recorded earlier, the refund of Rs. 4,335.29 also does not call for interference. 6. Refund of Rs. 4,739.92 is rejected on the ground that services incurred by the appellant is on GTA service but the appellant failed to produce consignment notes to support receipt of GTA service. That the goods exported were transported by the provider of this service and the....