TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) Technical Testing and Analysis: Refund was rejected on the ground that there is no co-relation between testing done and export consignment and that there is no written agreement with the customer to the said effect. (b) Port Services: Invoices issued are under Business Auxiliary services and not port services and service provider was not authorized by the port authority as a Port Service Provider as per the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Appellant failed to provide that the service provider was authorized by port authorities to carry on activities in port area. (c) C & F Services: There is no co-relation and prescribed particulars not mentioned in the invoice issued by the service provider. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were not filed. However all the documents were filed alongwith refund claim and copies of the same also placed on record in these appeals therefore both the lower authority have not properly perused the records, hence the rejection of claim is not sustainable on this ground alone. 3.1 As regard the merit of the case, on Technical Testing and Analysis Services, he submits that the testing was carried out by the SGS and as per the bill issued by the service provider, the quantity description are clearly matching with relevant shipping bill therefore the nexus between the testing invoice and exports is clearly established. 3.2 As regard the agreement between appellant and the foreign buyer, he shown copy wherein clear clause for testi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service with the goods exported in as much as there is no details of export invoices and not specific to goods exported. In this regard he referred to the summary of invoices and service tax paid thereon. The Bill of PVGT Freight Forwarders & Logistics Pvt Ltd shows transportation of Rs. 15,000/- and as per bill of Indev Logistics enough details have been mentioned on bills to establish co-relation. In OIA it was mentioned that LR was not submitted whereas there is no mentioned in the OIO and the fact is that LR is available which is also enclosed with appeal papers. 3.7 Regarding the storage and warehouse services, he submits that warehouse was taken on lease at Krishnapattam Port which is exclusively meant for exports of goods only. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this condition is mandatory therefore before 7/12/2008 as per this condition the appellant is not entitle for the refund. In support, he placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur[2015(37) S.T.R. 410 (Tri. Del)]. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that in appeal No. ST/421/11-MUM appellant have admittedly claimed drawback in respect of export of goods and at the same time they have claimed refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. This refund pertains to the period January, 2008 to September, 2008. As per the notification 41/2007 there is a condition that refund claim under this notification was not admissible if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner number/shipping bill number and export invoice number are appearing on the bills of service provider, this is sufficient to establish the nexus between input service and the export goods. 6.5 Regarding the foreign commission Service refund should not have been rejected only because it is pertaining to the period prior to period of export of service. There is no dispute that foreign commission exclusively related to the export of goods. It is also not in dispute that in respect of same amount of service tax appellant have not claimed refund earlier, therefore the appellant is prima facie entitle for the refund of service tax. 6.6 Regarding the Insurance of Storage of goods appellants submission is that the storage of goods is excl....