2016 (3) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 for the period July 2008 to September 2008. The refund is claimed on the ground that they have paid service tax on various services received by them and used for export of goods manufactured by them. The claim was decided vide order-in-original dated 26/2/2009. Out of Rs. 3,59,488/- an amount of Rs. 2,86,403/- has been allowed as refund and an amount of Rs. 73,085/- has been rejected by the Original Authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected their appeal. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs. 73,085/- was rejected on the ground that they have claimed refund under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned the appeal records. The point for decision is the eligibility of the appellant for exemptions/refund of service tax paid by them with reference to export of their goods. The dispute is relating to correct classification and categorization of the impugned services. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the service providers have not classified these services under Port Services in their bills/ invoices. In fact most of the service providers have not shown classification of service. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the service tax claimed as refund should have been paid to the Government by the service provider under Port Services. We find that such condition is not figuring in the notification. Notificatio....