2018 (2) TMI 1813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the appellant showing the services namely BL Charges and IHC which has been explained by the appellant that these charges have been paid by the appellant for Bill of Lading and Inland Haulage charges. Further, in the invoice, the service tax element has been shown and appellant has paid service tax to the service provider. The refund claim cannot be rejected to the appellant under N/N. 41/20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant paid service tax thereon and after export of the goods, the appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007. The case of the Revenue is that as BL charges and IHC are not explained in the invoice, moreover, the registration number of the service provider is not mentioned in the invoice, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the refund of the serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the availment of service and payment of the service tax thereon has not been disputed by the Revenue. In that circumstances, the refund claim cannot be rejected to the appellant under Notification No. 41/20017, as the appellant has received the services for export of goods, therefore, the impugned order deserves no merits, hence set aside. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X