2020 (5) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants who are 100% EOU filed refund claim dated 15.6.2017 for refund of Rs. 2,40,996/- being the service tax paid on taxable services availed by them for export of the goods. The said refund claim was filed under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012. The appellant had exported 'Garnet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant had exported the goods and filed refund claim as per Notification 41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012. The appellant had fulfilled all the conditions as required under the notification. The department does not have a case that the appellant has not fulfilled any of the conditions or has not paid service tax on the services availed for export of the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and argued for the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order and added that when the appellant has done unlawful mining, the goods attained the character of contraband and therefore the rejection of refund is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as after hearing the submissions of both sides, I find that the ground for rejection....