9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their refund claim filed by them under Notification No.41/2007 dt. 06.10.2007 for the services used in export of goods. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim for the quarter ending September, 2008 on 11.05.2009 for the services of CHA, Courier Service and Business Support Service availed by them for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C. The Courier Service 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 service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, dated 7-7-2009 so as to allow filing of the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. Inasmuch as the appellant filed the refund claims in July, 2009 for the quarter ending October-December, 2008, the refund claims are within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. Therefore, the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of refund und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
