9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 16,17,016/- on the ground of time bar I have observed that the Appellants have admittedly filed the refund claim on 31/03/2010 i.e., after the issuance of Notification No. 17/2009-ST, therefore the refund claim deemed to have been submitted under Notification No. 17/2009-ST - Commissioner (appeals) gravely erred, firstly mentioning that the application was filed before 07/07/2009 which is factually incorrect and secondly when refund claim was admittedly filed on 31/03/2010, it was wrong on the part of Commissioner to hold that the Appellants have filed refund claim under the previous notification no.41/2007-ST and for this reason benefit of public notice No.07/2010 dated 04/03/2010 was not extended to the Appellant. In view of my abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service there is no nexus between the export and the said service. 3. Shri Manoj Chouhan Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submit that as regard availment of drawback, this condition was omitted in the notification No.41/2007-ST vide amendment notification No.33/2008-ST dated 07.12.2008 therefore the refund for the period on or after 07.12.2008 is admissible. This submission was categorically made before the Commissioner (Appeals) but he has neither considered nor given any finding on this aspect. He submits that after 07.12.2008, since no condition related to drawback exists, the refund claim for the period after 07.12.2008 could not have been rejected on this ground. As regard time bar, he submits that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before 07.07.2009 is factually incorrect. Moreover, at the time of filing refund on 31.03.2010, notification no. 41/2007-ST was not in existence, hence question of filing refund claim under the said notification does not arise. Therefore it is not correct to say that the refund claim in the present appeal was filed under previous notification. 4. On other hand, Shri A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Assisstant Commissioner (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that as per the Ld. Counsel s submissions, the Ld. Commissioner and Adjudicating Authority have not considered the relevant factual aspects, it will be proper if the matter is remanded for reconsideration of the matter. 5. I have carefully considered the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner wrongly rejected the claim on time bar. As regard nexus of commission service with the export I am of the view that the service is of overseas commission agent who provides services exclusively related to export of goods, therefore even by stretch of imagination it cannot be said that overseas commission agent s service is used for the purpose other than for export. The Appellants also submitted details in AnnexureC to this appeal which establish the nexus between the commission agent service and export goods. As regard the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 16,17,016/- on the ground of time bar I have observed that the Appellants have admittedly filed the refund claim on 31/03/2010 i.e., after the issuance of Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
