2017 (8) TMI 1558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal:   The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for refund of service tax paid on the services namely Business Auxiliary Services and transport of goods by road which were availed by them for export of goods is denied.   2. L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot admissible.   4. Heard the parties considered the submissions.   5. With regard to the issue of time bar, I find that the issue has been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Raymond Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-III -2014-TIOL this Tribunal observed as under:-   "5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In the present case the refund claim pert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court, in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. (supra) has held that when procedure and practice are amended they have to be amended retrospectively and the benefit allowed if the procedures are satisfied. This Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also held the same view. Further, the CBEC in Circular dated 12.03.2009 cited supra, have also held that so long as the refund claim....