9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice in terms of export of service Rules, 2005. In view of this fact denial of refund on the ground that the appellant have not claimed the refund considering as export services is misleading and not sustainable. Once it is undisputed that the service in question falls under Export of Services Rules, 2005 and the remittance of service charges made in convertible foreign currency which is evident from FIRCs submitted to the adjudicating authority. The claim of the appellant falls under the claim towards export of services therefore even though the adjudicating authority contended that services are covered under exemption notification NO. 13/2003 dated 20/6/2003 it cannot take away entitlement of refund under export of service. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chel Singapore (i) Photocopy of FIRCs (j) CA certificate 1 2 The sanctioning authority vide adjudication order No. R/300/STC/PIII/2012 dated 14/6/2012 sanctioned refund claim of ₹ 4,27,873/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the order-in-original. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before me. 2. Shri Pralhad J. Mandhane, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has provided export services to the service recipient who is located in Singapore and they have received the service tax in convertible foreign currency and in token of evidence to that effect they submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the refund was claimed against export of services. Therefore it is wrong on the part of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that appellant has taken this plea of export of services first time before the Commissioner (Appeals). Without prejudice he also submits that even it is position that the plea of refund against export service was not taken by the appellant before the original authority but if it is taken before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) it was well within his jurisdiction to entertain such plea and appeal could have been disposed of accordingly. 3. Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
