TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch in the case in hand, were eligible as per notification 41/2007-ST. In our considered view, the benefit of Notification no. 33/2008 can be claimed by the appellant from 07/12/2008 which is not in dispute as the Revenue has granted the said benefit to the appellant.- benefit of Notification no. 41/2007-ST was already in existence and was granted to the appellant and benefit of Notification 33/2008 was also granted to the appellant as on the date when it was enacted. - impugned order of the first appellate authority is correct and legal and does not require interference - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. ST/199/2010 - Final Order No. A/440/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 24-2-2015 - M. V. Ravindran And P. R. Chandrasekharan,JJ. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly claimed refund of 10% of the FOB value or the actual service tax paid whichever is less. He would draw our attention to the said notification no. 41/2007 and submits that the amounts which have been paid as refund are actually exemption. He would also submit that the words used in Notification no. 33/2008-ST stipulates that the percentage of FOB to be claimed as refund was substituted, which would mean that 10% would be applicable from the date of Notification 41/2007-ST. He would also rely upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Government of India vs. Indian Tobacco Association 2005(187)ELT162(SC) . He also relies on the Circular no. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12/03/2009 to bring to our notice that Board itself has clarified that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion no. 33/2008 can be claimed by the appellant from 07/12/2008 which is not in dispute as the Revenue has granted the said benefit to the appellant. 6. As regards the reliance placed by the learned counsel, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Tobacco Association (supra) we find that in the case therein, there was no dispute as to the export of the goods and the benefit on the goods exported were sought to be denied only on the ground that the Port from where the goods were exported was not included in the Notification which were subsequently included by using the words substitution'. The said ratio laid down by the apex court may not be applicable in the case in hand, as in this case the benefit of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
