TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f quarter consequent to amendment of notification. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of this tribunal in the case of Gran Overseas Ltd. reported in 2016-TIOL-3373-CESTAT-DEL, the time limit prescribed under Notification No.41/2007 is only a procedural requirement and that substantial benefit of notification cannot be denied. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the finding in the impugned orders and submits that the refund claims should have been filed within two months and admittedly the appellant has filed the refund claim beyond the said period, therefore, the clarification given by the CBEC is not applicable retrospectively. 4. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 5. I find that the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Gran Overseas Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observing the facts of the case and observed as under: 5. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, I find that a similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Chandrasekhar Exports (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 6. On consideration of submissions made by both the sides,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the benefit of refund, subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. 6. Following the above decisions, I hold that, in the present case also, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended by Notification No.17/2007 and the time bar aspect is not attracted. However, the appellant has to satisfy that they have fulfilled the other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority only for satisfying that the appellant has fulfilled the other terms and conditions stipulated in Notification No. 41/2007 and the time bar issue will have no application. 6.1 The above reproduced ratio of the Tribunal is squarely applicable in this case also and the conclusion reached by the first appellate authority cannot be faulted with. 6.2 On the issue and the reliance placed by learned D.R. on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Ambalal & Co. (Supra) we find that the said judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court was in respect of benefit of Notification and if the conditions laid down in the Notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inerals Ltd. reported in 2012 (27) STR 18 (Tri. Del.) wherein this Tribunal hold that the assessee is entitled for refund claim on the services received from CHA. Therefore, he further submits that with regard to refund claim for Courier Service, the issue was dealt by this Tribunal in the case Krishna International Exim vide Final order No.A/50569-50585/2017-SMB dated 27.01.2017, therefore, they are entitled for refund claim on courier service. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 11. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 12. It is a case of denial of refund claim filed by the appellant under Notification No. 41/2007 on the ground that the service provider at the port were not authorized by port authorities. I find that the said issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of M/s SRF Ltd.(Supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 1.3 Further, both the definitions used the phrase any person authorized by port/airport. In many ports/airports there is no procedure of specifically authorizing a service provider to undertake a particular activity. While there may be restriction on entry into such ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....41/2007. B. With regard to denial of refund claim of Clearing and Forwarding Services: I find that in fact, these services have been received by the appellant from the CHA and it has been wrongly mentioned in clearing and forwarding services, therefore, admissibility of refund claim at port services has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of East India Minerals Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 4. We have considered the arguments from both sides. We find that the impugned exemption notification allowing refund of service tax paid in respect of exports has been issued with the sole objective of removing the burden of service tax from the export goods. It has been rightly contended by the ld. advocate that it is the avowed policy of the Government not to export domestic tax along with export goods and to make such goods competitive in the foreign market. We also find that in the case of WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 273 (Tri.-Mumbai), it was held in paragraph 10 thereof that where refund claims are filed after the amendment, and the claims satisfy the requirements under the amended rules, the refund claims should n....