TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29 / 2017 - Dated:- 7-2-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. R.K. Hasija, Advocate - for the appellant Sh. V. Gupta, AR - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order for denial of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant exported Rice Agro and Non Agro product and during the course of export, the appellant received certain inputs services. After exported of the said goods, the appellant filed refund claim of the services availed for the export of the goods. The refund claim was rejected on various grounds. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es have been provided by the service provider who had paid services on these services. It is also not in dispute that all these services have been availed by the appellant themselves. In that circumstances, relying on the various case laws where it has been held that all these services are availed for export of goods for claim of refund as per Notification 41/02007 ibid, is admissible, therefore, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sakuma Exports Ltd. in Appeal No. ST/85094/2013 dated 11.11.2016, wherein this tribunal observed as under: 3. The issue that falls for consideration is regarding refund of the services tax paid by the service providers for the services rendered by them to appellant. It is the case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, I find that the issue was examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Gran Overseas Ltd. vide Final Order No. 55876-55877/2016 dated 13.12.2016, again this Tribunal observed as under: 5. On careful consideration of submission made by both the sides, I find that a similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports, wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 6. On consideration of submission made by both the sides, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had exported the goods and had utilized the services of the service provider for such exports. It is also not in dispute that appellant is eligible for the refund of the amount of service tax paid by the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions stipulated in the Notification. 5.1 The Hon ble High court of Bombay, which is the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Uttam Steel ltd. (supra) has held that when procedure and practice are amended they have to be amended retrospectively and the benefit allowed if the procedures are satisfied. This Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has also held the same view. Further, the C.B.E. C. In Circular dated 12.03.2009 cited supra, have also held that the so long as the refund claims is filed within the extended period of time provided for in the Notification, the assessee would be eligible for the benefit of refund, subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. 6. Fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue has been examined by this Tribunal observes as under: 5. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly, in this case service tax has been paid, service has been utilised. It is not the case that these services do not qualify under Notification 41/2007. Only reason for denial is that there is no correlation of service provided to them to the export goods. The board circular dated 19.01.2010 has clarified wherein they have made clear that it is to be seen whether service tax has been paid or not, whether service has been used or not, whether service falls within the Notification or not. These facts are not in dispute. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Appeals are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
