Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. K S Oils Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 5 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Service Tax Appeal No. 1643 & 1684 of 2010- Ex(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 304(DKV)ST/JPR-I/2010 dated 17.8.2010 and No. 318(DKV)ST/JPR-I/2010 dated 24.8.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur (Raj). ]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. K S Oils Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent Jaipur I
Appearance:
Shri Rachit Jain, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K C Jain, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision: 05.09. 2016 ORDER NO . FO/53389-53390 /2016-Ex(SM) Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa :
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical.
2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri Rachit Jain, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri K C Jain, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellants, who are engaged in the exports, filed refund claims of Service tax paid on various service utilized by them for export purposes, in terms of notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. Whereas the part of the refund claim was allowed by the authorities below, the claim to the extent of Rs.1,44,862/- were rejected in respect of Service Tax paid on the terminal handling charges and Bill of lading fees on the ground that the said services cannot be considered to be port services, which are the specified services in terms of notification.
3. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Reference can be made to the following decisions:
1. Suncity Art Exporters vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur II [2014-TIOL-2319-CESTAT-DEL];
2 Overseas Taders vs. CST, Mumbai [2016-TIOL-2039-CESTAT-Mum];
3 Crystalline Exports Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai [2015 (37) STR 778];
4 SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur I [2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri-Del)];
5 Ginni International Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur Final Order No. 51002/2016 dated 3.3.2016; and 6 Natural Slate & Sandstone Exports P Ltd. vs CCE Jaipur Final Order No. 52541/2016
4. It stands held in all the above referred decisions, that the refund of service tax paid on the terminal handling and bill of lading is admissible inasmuch the said services are nothing but port services.
5. Accordingly, by applying the ratio of the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the refund claims. Appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
(pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
3