JUDGMENT Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the Union of India through Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Udaipur under Section 35 G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order No.ST/A/54815-54816/2016 -Sm (BR) dated 2.11.2016 whereby the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT for short) disposed of the appeal in following terms: "(i) The assessee is entitled for refund of Rs. 17,87,445/- and the impugned order to that extent is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (ii) with regard to refund claim of Rs. 15,46,270/- filed by the revenue, the matter is remanded to the original authority for verification of the agreements along with Lorry receipts, evidencing transportation of goods from the place of removal to the port of export. If the said documents are in order, the benefits of refund of Rs. 15,46,270/- shall be extended to the assessee." 2. As per facts of the case, the respondent assessee M/s. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt Ltd, Udaipur filed a refund claim of Rs. 33,33,715/- for the period from Jan., 2008 to March, 2008 in terms of notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended claiming refund of service tax paid by them on the specified taxable services namely port services, terminal handling charges (THC), handling charges, technical testing and analysis service inspection and certification services, CHA service and transport of goods by road service classified under Section 65(105)(zn), (zzh), (zzi), (h) and (zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Udaipur vide order No.174/08/R-ST(Ref) dated 17.7.2008 sanctioned the refund of the same amount. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Commissionarate, Jaipur-II reviewed the said order and in terms of provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, sent revision notice on 26.4.2010 to the assessee for recovery of said amount alongwith interest under Section 73(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Commissionarate Jaipur-Second passed the revisional order dated 9.7.2010, against which the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT and that appeal was disposed of as mentioned above. 3. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Commissionarate Jaipur-Second passed the revisional order dated 9.7.2010, against which the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT and that appeal was disposed of as mentioned above. 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 notification no.41/2007 gave finding that it is an admitted fact of the record that the services towards terminal and other handling services were availed by the assessee within the port area, in connection with export of the goods. Thus, irrespective of classification of service, since the same are provided within the port for export of goods, the benefit of refund should be available under the head port services in terms of notification dated 6.10.2017. the tribunal held that in case of Shivam Exports, SRF Ltd., and AIA Engineering it has been held that irrespective of the classification of service, if the services are provided within the port, the same should qualify as port service for the purpose of benefit of refund. Whiling giving aforesaid finding, the CESTAT held that in view of the factual position, the assessee is eligible for refund of Rs. 16,72,923/-. 4. In our the finding recorded by the learned CESTAT is based upon factual aspect of the matter and therefore, no substantial questions of law emerges for consideration in this regard. With regard to the JTA service availed for transportation of goods fro the place of removal to the port of export, the learned tribunal held that refund claim was filed after issuance of the notification no.3/2008 dated 19.2.2008 and in identical situation in case of East India Minerals Ltd the refund claim was allowed, therefore, assessee is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,00,742/- paid on transportation charges for transport of goods from place of removal to the port of export. 5. In our opinion, there is no error in the finding given by the learned CESTAT for refund of GTA services, therefore, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in this appeal for the said amount. 6. After examining the order in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that learned CESTAE has not committed any wrong to remand the matter with regard to remaining amount of refund of Rs. 6. After examining the order in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that learned CESTAE has not committed any wrong to remand the matter with regard to remaining amount of refund of Rs. 15,46,270/- and therefore no substantial question of law emerges for consideration. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.