9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts in these appeals are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Yarn and registered under Service Tax Rules for goods transport agency. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 52,615/- of Service Tax paid on GTA services used for export of material in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST in Appeal No. 721/2012 and for Rs. 2,41,184/- and Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the invoices. As the appellants have now rectified their mistakes and the appeal was rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to submit documentation evidencing payment of Service Tax from ICD to port of export, he pleaded that corrected charts and other documents in support of their claim be reexamined by the adjudicating authority. He also relied on the Board Circular No.112/06/09- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2017 Namdhari Food international (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi. 4. Mittal International Vs. CCE, Rohtak 2017 (3) TMI 1512 CESTAT CHD. 5. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Heard the parties and perused the record. 7. I find that the refund claims in the impugned appeals has been rejected on the two grounds. The first reasons for rejection is that descri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd input services, the same also include the drawback of Service Tax paid on outward transportation from ICD to the port. The appellants contended that this is not an input service and they have not taken drawback on this portion and the same is not legally admissible. In this regard, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has given the following finding in Para 5.5 of the order pertaining to Appeal No.ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
