TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it and some of the services have not been specified in the Notification No.41/2007 (supra). 2. The exporter assessee namely Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri Rajesh Rawal and the Revenue represented by Ld. DR, Shri G. R. Singh have been heard carefully. 3. After having carefully gone through the facts of these matters and the submissions presented by the Ld. Counsels on behalf of the Revenue and the exporter assessee, it appears that on the issue of time bar the refund claim of the exporter assessee has wrongly been rejected. The matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision in case of CCE Pune Vs Chandrashekhar Exports2013 TIOL-2448 - CESTAT -Mumbai. The Tribunal in the said case 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 the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 on 31.03.2009 which is beyond the period of six months as mandate in Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended from time to time. He would submit that the first appellate authority has incorrectly appreciated the facts and exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 Notification was amended vide Notification No.17/2009, dated 7-7-2009 so as to allow filing of the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. Inasmuch as the appellant filed the refund claims in July, 2009 for the quarter ending October-December, 2008, the refund claims are within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. Therefore, the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of refund under the aforesaid Notification subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. 5.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, which is the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. (supra) has held that when procedure and practice are amended they have to be amended retrospectively and the benefit allowed if the procedures are satisfied. This Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Polymers Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I find that this decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited cited by the learned counsel subsequently. Moreover, Para 6 of the order reproduced below makes it quite clear that Tribunal took the view that refund is admissible since service tax on Terminal Handling Charges was paid on the Port Services and the Port Service was a notified service and matter was remanded only for the purpose of verification as to whether the service tax paid on the Port Service or not :- "6. From the certificate it is quite clear 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the refund claim rejected for the services pertaining to 'wharfage charges' and 'inspection and certification', in the exporter assessee's own case i.e. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited v/s CCE Indore, vide Final Order No.50296/2017-SM[BR] in Appeal No.ST/255/2011-CUS[SM], the Tribunal has allowed the benefit of refund. The tribunal in the said decision has observed as under: 7. In respect of Technical Testing and Analysis Services, refund to the extent of Rs. 46,968/- stands disallowed. It is not in dispute that Service Tax has been paid under the head of Technical Testing and Analysis Services. But Revenue is of the view that the services for which such Service Tax payment has been made included container stuffing, weighment, sampling and Rake loading and unloading Analysis services, etc. The view taken by Revenue is that these services are not specified services for allowing refund of Service Tax. I find that Service Tax has been paid by the registered Service provider under the category of Technical Testing and Analysis Services. There is no dispute that "Technical Testing and Analysis Services" are one of the specified services under the Notification No.17/2009....