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

....r 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 analysis has to be done in res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax paid in this regard. As regards the refund of ₹ 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 has exported the goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be faulted. As regards the refund claim of ₹ 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 ₹ 16,458.33. As regards the claim for ₹ 36,802.14, it is an admitted fact that the said ....