TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bai-I. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant being an exporter is entitled to exemption of Service Tax paid on the specified input services utilized by it in the course of its export business as provided under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. Accordingly for the year 2008, the appellant filed 4 quarterly claims for refund of Service Tax paid by them on taxable services utilized in the business of export. The details of which are as follows: - Sr. No. Order-in-Original & date Period Date of receipt Refund amount 1. Refund/GS/19/10 dt. 15.01.2010 Jan, 08 to Mar, 08 30.5.2008 Rs.41,729/- 2. Refund/GS/20/10 dt. 15.01.2010 Apr, 08 to June, 08 Not mentioned Rs.42,394/- 3. Refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er issue of the exemption Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007, in view of the difficulty faced by the assessees, in availing the exemption by way of refund, amendment and substitution were made time to time as well as the supersession of the notification was also done. The departmental clarification was issued on 17.4.2008, 12.5.2008, 11.12.2008 and 12.3.2008, Notification No. 41/07 was in operation till 6.7.2009 and was superseded by Notification No. 17/09-ST dated 7.7.2009. The said notification is claimed by the department, in its Clarificatory Circular dated 6.7.2009 as "revamp of the entire scheme" with the object of achieving "speedy refunds" to exporters. The major departure from the original scheme was that the refund was now ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the storage and warehousing service, the condition of approval and/or the warehouse has been used exclusively in export of goods have been removed by the Notification No. 52/2011 (para 41, sub para 12) which also stood clarified by Circular No. 112/06/09 dated 12.3.2009. 3.3 As regards CHA service, the same was collected under Port Service by the service provider, vide clarificatory Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.3.2009, the CBE&C on the issue raised "the service provider providing services to the exporter provides various service. But he has registration of only one service. The refund is being denied on the grounds that the taxable services that are not covered under the registration are not eligible for such refunds", had clar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion dated 12.3.2009 and Notification No. 52/2011. 3.7 In respect of Courier Service, it has been held that the appellant have failed to establish the relationship of service with the goods exported and also in the absence of IEC Code not mentioned in the invoice. Accordingly, the finding of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld. Being aggrieved, the appellant have preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 3.8 The appellant vehemently argued that in view of the law, time to time clarification issued and clarified by subsequent notifications superseding the original notification No. 41/2007, if the same are read together, it will be found that the appellant is entitled to refund. The appellant have filed copies of some of the invoice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice provider to the effect that they are engaged in the business of storage for last 12 years and stored the export consignment of M/s K Prashant Enterprises, the appellant herein from time to time. 3.12 The appellant further vehemently argued that in view of the subsequent clarifications, amendments and superseded from time to time, the court below have erred in denying the exemption and accordingly appeal should be allowed. 3.13 The appellant further relied on the SMC ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Alpine Apparels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - 2013 (30) STR 687 (Tri-Del), wherein this Tribunal has held that where the invoice of courier agency gives all the details save and except the IEC Code no. of exporter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that condition was not fulfilled and accordingly, rejection of refund was upheld. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refunds of Service Tax as claimed by them in all the four appeals save and except in respect of CHA service for the period Jan, 08 to March, 08 as the said service was notified from 1.4.2008. As regards the ruling of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Magsons Exports (supra), I find that the same is without taking into notice the various subsequent clarifications and superseding notifications wherein the condition has been simplified and or clarified. Further, in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the appellant is registered with the DGFT and ....