TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is directed against the Order-In-Appeal dated 05.03.2010. The dispute is with reference to rejection of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 for the quarter ending December 2008. The appellant filed the refund claims for Service Tax paid in respect of the following services claimed to have been used for export of goods. i. Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and rejected for not producing evidence to link the use of courier service to export goods. In respect of GTA services the same has been disallowed as they were not for export of goods directly from the place of movable to the port. A part of the claim also stands rejected on account of the fact that they have claimed drawback in respect of export goods and hence the claim gets settled by the cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority to re-decide the matter in the light of the various decisions of the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative reiterated the order passed by the authorities below. He has no objection to the remand of the matter. However, he added that in cases where drawback has been claimed during the period prior to 07.12.2008, the refund under Notification No. 41/2007 is not allowable. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the matter. Since there have been a series of decisions by the Tribunal in which all aspects of the claims under Notification no. 41/2007-ST has been decided, we direct the original authority to give careful consideration to all such decisions. In this connection, some of the decisions are given below which can be referred to: 1. SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I [2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri- Del)]; 2. M....