9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing both the sides I find that the appellants are engaged in the business of export of goods and holder of Service Tax registration. They filed refund claim of Rs. 1,74,858/- for the period Jan 2008 to March 2008, in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. A part of the said refund claim, on account of CONCOR charges amounting to Rs. 51,196/- was allowed by the original adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lfil the condition of the Notification No. 3/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 and refund stands rightly rejected by the original adjudicating authority. Similarly, in the case of courier agency services, he rejected the same by observing that the invoices of the service provider, on the basis of which refund has been claimed, does not fulfil the conditions of the notification, refund is not admissible. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. I find that in view of the above decisions, refund of Repo charges, THC charges is available to the appellants in terms of the notification. I also note that in the case of Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited, the refund was rejected on the ground on non production of evidence, for which the matter was remanded. Inasmuch as in the present case, Commissioner has observed that certain c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
