2013 (12) TMI 1624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice used in export of goods under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, read with Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. The said claim was inter alia rejected on various grounds. The refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,64,364.14 was rejected on the ground that the appellant had undertaken the export by availing the drawback, whereas for claiming the refund under Notification No. 41/2007, there was a condition that the appellant should not claim drawback of the service tax paid on input services. Another amount of Rs. 16,458.33 was rejected on a ground that in respect of technical testing and analysis service the appellant did not produce written agreement with the foreign buyer wherein it is mandated that technical testing and anal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refund of the service tax paid in this regard. As regards the refund of Rs. 36,802.14, it is his contention that they had incurred the courier charges for the various correspondences undertaken and therefore, there is a nexus between the charges incurred with the ultimate export of the goods. Accordingly, he prays that the refund be allowed. 4. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue on the other submits that clause (e) of the proviso to main paragraph of Notification No. 41/2007 stipulates that "the goods have been exported without availing drawback of service tax paid on the specified services under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995". In the present case it is not in dispute that the appellant h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laim on this ground cannot be faulted. As regards the refund claim of Rs. 16,458.33 the purchase order placed on the appellant clearly shows that he has to confirm to the H&M standard purchase conditions. H&M standard conditions obliges the supplier to undertake certain tests and there is evidence that the appellant has conducted these tests. Therefore, the appellant has satisfied the requirement of the Notification that there is a written agreement between the exporter and the buyer for conducting the test and the invoice issued by the service provider (of testing) is in the name of the exporter. Therefore, the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund of Rs. 16,458.33. As regards the claim for Rs. 36,802.14, it is an admitted fact that....