TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut in the invoices produced by the appellant - the adjudicating authority directed to verify the documents for services received by the appellant and corresponding invoice of service provide and goods transporter to ascertain the fact, whether the invoices produced by the appellant are in respect of transportation of goods from their factory to the port of export or not - matter on remand. Part appeal allowed - part matter on remand. - ST/997/2010 - A/61227/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. Surjeet Bhadu, Shri. Veer Singh, Advocates- for the appellant Shri. V.K. Tehran, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim on the services used in export of goods. 5. I find that vide Order-in-Appeal No.01 dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Director of Drawback, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has observed as under: I find that all the nineteen services mentioned by the applicant in his application are covered by notification no.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended last by notification No.24/2008-ST dated 10.5.2008. The services covered by the aforementioned notification are not in the nature of input services but are linked to exports. Drawback, therefore, could not have been given on these services. 6. As observed hereinabove, the services which were used by the appellants for export of the goods does not form part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the refund was denied to the Appellant mainly on various procedural grounds as stated hereinabove. Be that as it may, as regards refund for THC on the grounds such as invoice being raised by shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorization from port authorities, I find that such issues stand concluded in favour of the appellant vide Board Circular dt.12.3.09 as well as various case laws as referred to and relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the case of Riddhi Siddhi GlucoBiols Ltd. and Fibre Bond Industries (supra) . As such, denial of refund claim on THC services does not appear to be correct and is allowed. 15. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
