9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te For the Respondent: Mr. Ranjan Khanna, D.R. ORDER PER: R.K. SINGH Appeal has been filed against Order in Appeal dated 02.04.2009 in terms of which the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 1,75,869/- under Notification No.41/2007-ST was upheld. 2. The appellant has contented that:- i) The refund has been rejected on services, namely, terminal handling charges, documentation charges, CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant time. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. We find that during the relevant period i.e. January, 2008 to March, 2008, CHA service was not specified under the said Notification and therefore, the refund in respect thereof is clearly inadmissible. As regards the remaining services, there is force in the contention of the appellant that the judgment cited in para 2 (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid proviso was deleted vide Notification No.33/08-ST dated 07.12.2008. Thus, during the relevant period this proviso was very much applicable. We are unable to agree with the contention of ld. Advocate that Notification No.33/2008-ST dated 07.12.2008 in terms of which inter alia the said proviso (e) was deleted should be given retrospective effect, for the simple reason that it is trite that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
