2016 (2) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w: S. No. Appeal No. Name of the Appellate Amount Rejected Period of Rejection Grounds of Rejection 1 ST/784/2009 M/s. Shivam Exports, Jodhpur 63,069/- 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 1. Service not covered under Port Services. 2. Non Submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services. 3. Debit note not proper documents. 2 ST/786/2009 Mecshot Blasting Equipment (P) Ltd. 19,681/- 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2008 1. Service not covered under Port services 2. Non Submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services. 3. Debit note not proper documents. 3. ST/788/2009 M/s. Shree Ram Industries 76,892/- 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2008 1. Service not covered under Port services 2. Non Submission of proof of payment of se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....porting impugned order referred to the judgment of CESTAT in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. CCE Jaipur-2015(37) STR 410 (Tri-Del). 4. We have considered the contentions of both the sides. Perusal of notification No. 41/2007-ST reveals that it is an exemption notification operationalised by way of refund and therefore, the onus is on the exporter to show that it has paid service tax to the service provider which can be inferred from the invoices issued by service providers containing the element of service tax. As regards the various charges like Terminal handling charges, Bill of Lading, Misc export expenses, Business Auxiliary services, etc. availed in connection with the port services, it has been held by CESTAT in the case of S....