SESA GOA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting the refund claims. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are the exporter of Iron ore and in the course of export, they undertook the service of various ports particularly in the case of Calcutta Port Trust, the Service Tax charged by them under the category of Renting of Immovable Property service which is not notified service under Notification 41/2007. Therefore, refund claim was denied. Aggrieved from the same, appellant is before me.

(2.) THE ld. CA appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per Section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994, the port service means "any service rendered by a port or any person authorised by the port, in any manner, in relation to a vessel or goods." Therefore, although the service provider has paid Service Tax under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Service, but the same is in relation to port services. Therefore, they are entitled for refund claim as per the Board Circular No. 112/6/2009 -S.T., dated 12 -3 -2009. To support this contention, he relied on decision of the Tribunal in Pratap Re -rolling P. Ltd. vide Order No. A/827/2013/SMB/C -IV, dated 31 -10 -2013 [2014 (34) S.T.R. 868 (Tri. -Mum.)]. Therefore he prays that refund may be granted.

(3.) HEARD both sides. Considered the submissions.