Page 129 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI v. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. 31
[Notification No. 17/2008-S.T., dated 1-4-2008]
Exemption to specified taxable services used for export of goods -
Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 amended
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of
the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes
the following further amendments in the Notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 41/2007-
Service Tax, dated the 6th October, 2007 which was published in the Ga-
zette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) Vide number
G.S.R. 645(E) dated the 6th October, 2007, namely :-
In the said notification, in the schedule after Sr. No. 12, and the entires
relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely :-

(1) (2) (3) (4)
13. Section Services provided Exporter shall produce :-
65(105)(h) by a custom house (i) invoice issued by custom house
agent in relation agent for providing services speci-
export goods export- fied in column (3) specifying :
ed by the exporter. (a) number and date of shipping
bill,
(b) description of export goods.

4. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the
Learned Tribunal has not discussed the relevant facts relating to grant of refund
of the Service Tax to the Assessee with regard to service provided by M/s. Nat-
var Parikh Industries to the Assessee. The first appellate authority viz., the
Commissioner of Appeals, in his order dated 24-10-2008 with regard to the said
refund claim of the Assessee of Rs. 74,79,959/- had given the following findings.
“The service provider, M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd., having Registra-
tion No. AAACN5361LCH002 (Custom House Agent) have issued their
bills M/s. HMIL indicating the services. The Service Tax seems to have
been collected from the exporter claimant only in their capacity of provid-
ing Custom House Agent service. As required evidence was not made
available to conclude that M/s. Natwar Parikh Industries Ltd., are the per-
sons authorised by the port to provide post services and that tax was actu-
ally paid on port service, I am of the view that M/s. HMIL is not eligible for
the exemption claimed in relation to wharfage services that is available to
specified service of port services.”
From the above, it is dear that M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries Limited,
is not the provider of ‘port services’ and have not discharged the Service
Tax liability. Inasmuch as the Registration No. of the Port has been indicat-
ed in the bill M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd., in no way could have dis-
charged the Service Tax liability. In the instant case, Chennai Port Trust
have rendered the said service and paid the Service Tax as they are holders
of the above said Service Tax Registration and not M/s. Natvar Parikh In-
dustries Ltd., in any case. Accordingly, only based on the invoices/bills as
envisaged in Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 raised by M/s. Chennai
Port Trust, the appellant is entitled to claim refund of Service Tax on ‘Port
Services’. In this regard attention is drawn to Central Board of Excise and
Customs Circular No. 106/9/2008-ST (F. No. 137/84/2008-CS. 4), dated 11-
12-2008. With reference to Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 in
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  193