TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....75/- was rejected. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant argued the matter at length. The appellant submitted a table in the appeal with respect to the rejection of refund claim as under: Sl.No. Nature of Services Amount Allegations in the OIO for denying refund 1 GTA by Road Rs.22,57,265/- -No co-relation with the export documents to evidence that such GTA services have been used for export of the said goods - Stock register cannot be considered as specified document for correlation of services with the export of the said goods - Mere mentioning of details of export goods on the lorry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; -Services has not been approved as port service by the port authorities 5 Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess Rs.1,03,021/- -The Notification does not grant refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess 4. The ld. AR for the Revenue drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication Order. He particularly referred to, para VII page 11 of Order-in-Original , where the appellant had prayed for sanction of the refund of Rs. 26,22,260/-, whereas the SCN proposed rejection of the refund of Rs. 33,41,375/-. 5. I find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Belapur v. Pratap Re-rolling Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (34) S.T.R 868 (Tri.-Mumbai)] dismissed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le. In this case the Service Tax has been paid by the service provider under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Service but the service received by the appellant qualify under port service. 7. Therefore, relying on the decision of Pratap Re-roling P.Ltd. (supra), the appellant is entitled for refund claims. Therefore, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief." 6. In the case of Chidambaram Ship Care Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT [2015 (38) S.T.R. J123 (Mad.)], the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that statutory provisions relating to ports in allied acts cannot override taxation provisions. It has also been held that stevedoring services in a major or minor port is liable to service tax as port servi....