9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant in respect of service tax paid on terminal handling charges has been rejected on the ground that terminal handling charges was not one of the services mentioned in Notification No.41/2007-ST. Further, the claim has also been rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond six months prescribed under notification No.41/2007 since the appellant had mentioned notification No.41/2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice and before the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the ld. counsel. In paragraph 5 of the order of this Tribunal cited by the ld. counsel in their own case, it was held that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges in case of exports is admissible. As regards limitation, I find that the Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the stipulated period of one year; and (b) no previous refund claim has already been filed under the previous notification. [Authority: Board's Letter F.No.354/256/2009-TRU, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit, New Delhi, dated the 1st January, 2010]" 4. Since the department itself has taken the view that claim submitted after 07.07.09 have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
