2017 (6) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ginal Authority examined the refund claim and sanctioned the same party for to Rs. 2,27, 326/-. He rejected the claim for Rs. 4,38,823/-. On appeal, the said order was upheld by the impugned order. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that rejected amount relates to three types of services. The first one is for Rs. 1,25,357/- paid as service tax towards the GTA services availed by the appellant. The same was rejected on two grounds, namely, that they have not fulfilled the condition at serial no. 11 of the said notification to the effect that the details of linkage between transported goods and exported goods was not available and tax paid on movement of empty containers from ICD/port to the appellant's factory is not admissibl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d beyond six month's time limit. The submission of the appellant is that they could file the claim only on payment of service tax on reverse charge basis. The service tax having been paid in the first quarter of 2009, the claim has been filed in the third quarter of the said year. The same should be considered as filed within the time limit as no claim can be filed without payment of tax. 5. The refund under notification 41 of 2007 ST can be claimed on fulfillment of various conditions mentioned therein. Proviso (c), para 1 of the said notification stipulates that the exporter claiming the exemption has actually paid service tax on the specified services. It is clear that this is one of the basic condition without which no claim can be f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment of service tax, the claims filed within the period of limitation calculated from such payment, should be considered as filed in time. 6. An amount of Rs. 1,40,028/- was rejected on the ground that service tax on Terminal Handling Charges (THC) and documentation charges etc are not admissible as the appellants failed to produce evidence to the effect that these are attributable to port services. Further, THC was not a listed service prior to 07/07/2009. It is seen that it is a well settled legal position that THC and documentation charges incurred by the appellant within the port area for the services relating to the export of goods, are to be considered as services eligible for refund of service tax. Reference can be made to the ....