TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As the respondents were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under Section 68 (2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall not be eligible to claim exemption for specified services in view of the condition 2(a) of the said notification. Thus, there is strength in the contentions of the department that the said amount of refund claim is not as per proviso (c) to para 1 and condition 2(a) of the Notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.09. As such, the sanction of the said refund claim vide the impugned order is not in accordance with provisions of the said notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) the exemption claimed by the exported shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified service used for export of the said goods; (c) the exporter claiming the exemption has actually paid the service tax on the specified service to its provider; (d) No CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the specified service used for export of said goods has been taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. On the other hand, learned DR contested the pleading made by the counsel of appellant and stated that the respondents themselves have not paid service tax to the provider of the service and instead the respondents have made the payment of service tax involved under section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reference: 8.1 In the instant appeal, the department have contested the sanctioning of refund claim of ₹ 39,608/- vide impugned order with the argument that the refund claim has been sanctioned to the respondents under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007, though the same was filed under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.09 and that proviso (c) to para 1 and condition 2 (a) of the Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.09 were not met with. In this regard, it is observed that in para 12 of the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has mentioned that as per Ministrys clarification vide letter F. No. 354/256/2009-ST dated 1.10.10, the scheme prescribed under notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax on the specified service to its provider. In the instant case, the respondents themselves have not paid service tax to the provider of the service and instead the respondents have made the payment of service tax involved under section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, condition 2 (a) of the said notification no. 17/2009-ST stipulates that the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the specified service provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As the respondents were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under Section 68 (2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
