9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR - for the Respondent- Revenue ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal has been filed against the order-in-Appeal No.155/2010 dated 03.06.2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has claimed the refund of service tax paid on the services used in relation to export in terms of Notification No.41/2007 dated 6.10.2007. But the same was denied by the department. Being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the refund of Rs. 13,167/- paid on CHA services. Learned Counsel submits that the allegation of the department is that assessee has not fulfilled the conditions specified under Notification No.41/2007 dated 6.10.2007. After hearing both the parties, it is not disputed that the appellant has submitted the bills issued by various service provider. The appellant has paid the service tax to the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties, it appears that amount of refund claim of Rs. 34,794/- was disallowed for the reason that draw back has been claimed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, impugned order appears reasonable. The same is hereby sustained on this issue. Thus, the ground taken by the appellant is dismissed. Overseas Commission 7. The refund was claimed for the service tax paid on Overseas Commission amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
