9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHA service was not specified under the said Notification and therefore, the refund in respect thereof is clearly inadmissible. Admissibility of refund claim - Notification No.41/2007-ST - terminal handling charges, documentation charges and on goods transport by road service - Held that:- there is force in the contention of the appellant that the judgment of CESTAT in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 the absence of any express or implied provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... road service. ii) In terms of judgement of CESTAT in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.)], Commissioner of Central Excise vs. AIA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (36) STR 1236 (Guj.)] and M/s. Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 475 (Tri. Ahmd.)], it has been held that refund of service tax paid on such services is admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appellants favour with regard to the remaining services. However, it is seen that during the relevant period Notification No.41/2007-ST had the following proviso:- (e) the said goods have been exported without availing draw-back of service tax paid on the specified services under the Customs, Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Draw Back Rules, 1995. The exports were made claimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
