2025 (8) TMI 1143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the rejection of refund amounting to Rs. 72,243/ vide the Order-in-Original No.R-165/RKL-II/2012 dated 29.06.2012. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") is inter alia engaged in the activity of iron ore mining. The iron ore mined by the Appellant is exported out of India and sold to domestic customers as well. During the course of export, the Appellant had inter alia paid service tax on port services received from service providers, in relation to export of cargo. The iron ore fines, being a commodity which is exported in bulk cargo, the same is required to be taken to the Haldia port and stored at the port be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cordingly, it was proposed to reject the refund of service tax of Rs.72,243/- on this count. 2.3. On adjudication, the Ld. adjudicating authority has passed the Order-In-Original dated 29.06.2012, allowing the refund claim amounting to Rs. 5,70,274/- while rejecting the refund claim, amounting to Rs. 72,243/-, of the Appellant. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Original dated 29.06.2012, the Appellant preferred an appeal against the rejection of the refund amounting to Rs.72,243/- before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order-In-Appeal dated 22.01.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order") upheld the rejection of the refund claim of service tax paid on services provided by M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. 6.1. We observe that for the prior period, the lower authorities have granted the refund of service tax paid on the service of storage of iron ore fines at the port by considering the said service as " storage and warehousing service " which is a specified service under Sl. No. 9 of the Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, we find that in the present case, the ld. adjudicating authority has observed that port service is provided in connection with Renting of Immovable Property Service, which is not a specified service under the said Notification, and accordingly has rejected the refund for the subsequent period. 6.2. We observe that the same issue has already been decided in favour ....