9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant. S. Misra for the Respondent. ORDER Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member - Heard both sides. The impugned refund claims were filed by the appellant-exporter for refund of service tax paid on GTA services in respect of transport of the impugned goods directly from the place of removal to the port from where the same were exported. The claims were made under Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the export goods should not be made costly and less competitive in the foreign market. 3. The ld. SDR, Shri S. Misra appearing for the department, supports the impugned order and states that the refund was not admissible on the date of export and hence the same cannot be allowed. 4. We have considered the arguments from both sides. We find that the impugned exemption notification allowing re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /07-ST on 18.11.2008, the Board itself by circular dt. 12.3.2009 clarified that pending claims should be dealt with applying the amended provision as also noted by another Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Essar Steel Ltd. [Final Order Nos. A/1571-1572/2010-WZB/Ahd., dated 17-9-2010]. Following the ratio of the above cited decisions, and the Board's circular and also keeping in view the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
