2016 (11) TMI 704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sh. Vijayan Khongal, C.S. for the appellant Sh. R. K. Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran All these six appeals deal with the same issue of denial of refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges during the course of export of goods by the appellant. The appellant submitted that the services were availed for export of their goods inside the port and they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal and High Courts. A reference can be made to the decisions cited above. The findings of the Tribunal in M/s Shivam Exports is relevant which is reproduced as under: "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 sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xport of goods and services were received in relation to export of goods and procedural aspect cannot be reason for rejecting refund claim. As regards the so called improper invoices it was held by CESTAT in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra) that so long as the documents (debit notes) reveal the essential details like registration no service provided, service recipient, value of taxable service, refund....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal erroneously, that terminal handling charges when provided within the port do not fall under port services vide the Notification No.41/2007-ST. This conclusion of the adjudicating authority which found resonance in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), is in my considered view erroneous and proceeds on a fallacious interpretation of the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-ST; and I h....