2016 (10) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x paid on input services utilized for the export of goods during the period of February 2012 and April 2012 to June 2012 in Form A 1 under notification No. 52/2011-ST dated 30.12.2011. The appellant had filed refund claim on the ground that they are merchant exporter of Mobile Phone. As per online refund request, the appellant has claimed refund for services received under description of Customs House Agent Services . During the claim period, as per description mentioned in form A-1 of the subject notification they received the services in relation to export of the goods. Personal hearing in the matter was also conducted. The adjudicating authority while adjudicating the case, held that in respect of refund claim pertaining to period of Feb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri Vijayan Kr. Khongal, Advocate the Applicants and Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant was not registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textile. They have simplicitor referred to para 2 & 3 of the notification and pleaded that in terms of the said para refund is admissible to all the exporter and the said paras being the substantive paras of the notification, the condition prescribed in the subsequent paras should not be strictly adopted. As regards, time bar the appellants have contended that is the procedure defect and should not be adopted as a reason for denial of the refund. 4. I find no merits in the above ....