TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on refund is rejected - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.53012 of 2018- SM - Final Order No.50819/2019 - Dated:- 21-5-2019 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Tamnna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent. Anil Choudhary, The issue in this appeal is regarding grant of interest on refund under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act, read with provisions of Service Tax. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is an exporter. They availed input services in the process of export of their final products and accordingly, claimed refund of service tax amounting to ₹ 5,45, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim period is of one year, which was increased vide notification no.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 (from 6 months). Further, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to refund also on transportation of metal containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing of export goods under the supervision of Departmental Authorities. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to examine and ensure the compliance under Clause 2(j) of the notification no.17/2009, which requires the assessee where the amount of refund sought under a claim is more than 0.25% of the declared free on board value or FOB of export, such certification, shall be done by the Chartered Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Jan. 2009 to March, 2009, for which the claim was filed in December, 2009. 8. ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent/Revenue relied upon the impugned order. 9. Having Considered the rival contentions, I hold that the requirement of Condition No.2(j) of the Notification no.17/2009-ST was applicable to the appellant/assesse, as the said notification was issued by way of substitution of the earlier notification no.41/2007 and accordingly, the contention of the appellant that the condition no.2(j) is not applicable to them, is rejected. There is no delay on the part of the Revenue in granting the refund. Accordingly, this appeal for interest on refund is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
