TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,26,820/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department for payment of service tax under the category of "GTA". During the period 1.04.2008 to 30.06.2008, the appellant exported the processed Fabric and availed various services in relation to such exports. As per Notification No. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007, the exporter can claim refund of the service tax paid on the services specified therein, availed for export of goods. Accordingly, the appellant applied for the refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,77,068/- for the quarter ending June 2008. The Revenue instead of sanctioning the refund claim, issued the show cause notice dated 27.03.2009 proposing to deny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ational Vs. CCE - 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 186 (Tri. - Chan.), has held as under: - "8. I find that the authorities below have not understood the true spirit of the notification. In fact, the notification specifies that any other documents which means if the appellant provides the copy of the invoice, for the commission paid, the same will serve the condition of the notification. Therefore, if the invoice of the commission agent is on record, in that circumstance, the appellants have complied with condition of the notification and the appellant is entitled for availing the refund." (ii) The second ground for rejecting the refund is in relation to the claim for Service Tax paid on Services of Inland Transportation. In this regard also, the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsport of empty containers from the yard to the factory is admissible as refund." (iii) The third ground for rejection of the refund by the Revenue is that the service providers are not registered for the Services such as CHA/Port Services. To counter this objection, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per CBEC's Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, the service provider providing various services to the exporter, but has registration under one service, the refund cannot be denied on this ground and the discrepancy on the part of service provider has to be dealt separately with the service provider only. He further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to availing the services for the purpose of export as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansportation of empty container from port to factory is admissible as refund. 9. As far as the third ground for denial of refund is that the service providers are not registered for the services such as CHA/Port Services, this issue has also been considered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra) wherein it has been held that the Registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 41/2007. The relevant paras of the judgement are reproduced as under:- "3. The order dated 7-7-2010 was challenged before the CESTAT by the respondent assessee on various grounds but the Learned CESTAT while considering the No....