2017 (8) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their refund claim filed under the Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 being an exporter of goods for the services availed for export of goods. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim for the services used for export of goods namely: Port Services, Inland Haulage/Transp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant for export of goods received by the appellant for empty containers from port to their factory and the refund claim has been denied on the ground that these services have been received by the appellant on inputs in the impugned order. In fact, in the show cause notice it is sought to be denied on the premises that these are not used for export of goods. I find that the goods which has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, I find that the refund claim sought to be denied on the ground that the condition of Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules has not been met out by the appellant. In fact, as per CBEC circular No.112/6/2009 dated 12.03.2009, it has been clarified that merely, the procedural lapse on behalf of the service provider, the refund claim cannot be denied to the exported of goods when it has been establish....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r: 3. Considering the fact that the said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mittal International and others vide Final Order NO. 60416-60459/2017 dated 21.03.2017 wherein this Tribunal held that the drawback Rules are not applicable for the input services received for export of goods which only includes input services used in manufacturing or processing of export goods.....