9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29/06/2012 indicating therein that the CENVAT credit is utilised for payment of service tax on services exported to Bain Capital Mauritius. In our considered view, when the facts are very clear and when there is export of services and the amounts have been debited in CENVAT credit register; there was no reason for the lower authorities to reject such a valid rebate claim. Only reason given by the first appellate authority for rejecting this claim was that it was filed on 29/06/2012, whereas the invoice was raised on 30/06/2012 and cannot be correlated. Invoice can be raised on any date but the debit of the amount towards service tax liability was on the date when the rebate claims were filed. On a specific query from the bench, as to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2004 read with Notification NO. 5/2006 dated 14/06/2006 and Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19/04/2005. The department while scrutinising the said refund claims had allegedly found some discrepancies that were communicated to the appellant through show cause notice or deficiency memo etc. After hearing the appellant, the refund claims were disposed off. Refund claims for the period July, 2008 to March, 2010 (in all four) were totally rejected on merits. Refund claims for the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 (one) was partly sanctioned and partly rejected on merits. Refund claims for the period April, 2012 to June 2012 (one) was rejected on issue of law as well as on merits. 3. The appellant herein aggrieved by such order-in-origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service liability stands debited in the account on 29/06/2012. It is also his submission that the findings of the appellate as well as the adjudicating authorities are contrary to the factual position. 6. The learned Departmental Representative would submit that the amounts which have been indicated by the appellant as received in foreign exchange is not tallying with the amount which has been billed by the appellant for the services rendered. He would also draw our attention to the fact, that the ST-3 returns do not indicate as to the gross amount having been received in advance and it is not clear that the appellant had received what amounts for the services rendered. He would also submit that the rebate claim has been filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and cannot be correlated. Invoice can be raised on any date but the debit of the amount towards service tax liability was on the date when the rebate claims were filed. On a specific query from the bench, as to the certificate of foreign inward remittance not tallying with the amount indicated in the ST-3 returns, the learned counsel would submit that he would file the invoices and the correct reconciliation. It was filed by the appellant on 16/01/2015. On perusal of the said reconciliation and the documents like FIRCs and the invoices raised by the appellant, we find that the entire amount, which has been billed by the appellant to Bain Capital Mauritius, has been received by them through banking channel. 8. In the light of the factua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
