9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant on 11.05.2009 for the period September, 2008 which is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Raymond Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III [2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that The said Notification was amended vide N/N. 17/2009 dated 07/07/2009 so as to allow filing of the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods - refund claim filed by the appellant is within time. With regard to denial of Cenvat Credit for CHA Services and Courier Service, the said services has been availed by the appellant for export of goods and Service Tax is paid thereon which has not been disputed by the Revenue - the appellant is entitle for refund claim of the same. Appeal allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice and CHA are Business Support Services, therefore, they are not entitle. 6. The drawback claim has been calculated on the basis of the inputs used for manufacturing of the export goods but does not include the services covered under Notification No.41/2007. Therefore, claiming drawback by the appellants does not bar for claiming refund of Service Tax paid on the services covered under Notification No.41/2007 for export of the goods. In that circumstances, I hold that the ground of denial of refund claim is not sustainable. 8. On the issue of time barred, I find that refund claim has been filed by the appellant on 11.05.2009 for the period September, 2008 which is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication, the assessee would be eligible for the benefit of refund, subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. 6. Following the above decisions, I hold that, in the present case also, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended by Notification No.17/2007 and the time bar aspect is not attracted. However, the appellant has to satisfy that they have fulfilled the other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority only for satisfying that the appellant has fulfilled the other terms and conditions stipulated in Notification No.41/2007 and the time-bar issue will have no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
