TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the claim is time barred or on the ground that respective input services have not been specified in the Notification No.41/2000 (supra). 2. Both sides represented by Ld. Counsels, Shri Rajesh Rawat for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh for the revenue, have been heard. 3. After having carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides it appears that for issue of time bar, the matter is covered by Tribunal's decision in case of CCE Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports 2015-TIOL-2448-CESTAT-MUM, whereunder the Tribunal has observed as below: 4. Learned D.R. would submit that the appellant had filed refund claim of the service tax paid on the services received and utilized for the goods exported during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is settled principle as to Rules and Notifications are issued from to time to supplement the provisions of main Act and grant of relief of refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods has to be sanctioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled. We also find strong force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that this Bench in the case of Raymond Ltd. (supra) has held as under :- "5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In the present case the refund claim pertains to the quarter October-December, 2008. The appellant have filed the refund claims on 30-7-2009 for the refund under Notification 41/2007-S.T. The said Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted. However, the appellant has to satisfy that they have fulfilled the other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority only for satisfying that the appellant has fulfilled the other terms and conditions stipulated in Notification No.41/2007 and the time-bar issue will have no application. 6.1. The above reproduced ratio of the tribunal is squarely applicable in this case also and the conclusion reached by the first appellant authority cannot be faulted with. 3.1 In case of rejection of refund for respective input services pertaining to 'terminal handling charges', 'wharfage charges', 'loading unloading' and 'technical testing and analysis' on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that both terminal handling charges and REPO charges were paid to JNPT/NSICT and GTIL port services. It is surprising that in respect of REPO charges, the Commissioner has accepted the stand taken by the appellants that it is covered under port service whereas for terminal handling charges he considers that the same is not relating to port service. In fact the department could have easily verified whether THC and REPO charges were actually charges paid towards service tax for port services or not since Expressing Shipping and Logistics clearly says that whatever they have collected they have paid to the port authorities. Once REPO have been allowed, I do not find any justification to deny terminal handling charges. As regards bill of lad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis of documentary evidence that will be produced by the appellant. Appeals are decided by setting aside the impugned order and by way of remand to Original Adjudicating Authority to decide the terms of above observation." 5. In this case, the rejection has not been made on the ground that it is not Port Service but only on the ground that the Terminal Handling Charge was not specifically mentioned earlier. Since, there is no dispute nor there is any record or observation to show that service tax was not paid under the category of Port Service for Terminal Handling Charges and Port Services, admittedly are notified in the Notification No.41/2007-S.T., refund is admissible. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequentia....