9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/398/11 & 399/11 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2014 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Mr Prasad Paranjape, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr N N Prabhudesai, AR ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: The present appeals are against Order-in-Appeal Nos. as mentioned below (in table) passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Pune-I. As the issue dealt in and appellant is common in both the appeals, for different periods, I prefer to pass a common order for both the appeals. S.N. 1. 2. O-I-O Refund/137/STC/2010-11 Refund/144/STC/2010-11 O-I-A PI/RKS/34/2011 PI/RKS/35/2011 Appeals No. ST/3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reation (c) Support systems and claimed classification under category of 'BAS' and 'Management Consultancy Services'. The refund claim on input 'used in relation to 'Embroidery Software development' was rejected on ground that they are not considered as an output service by the appellant in their ST-3 returns filed by them. Further it was disallowed as the invoices did not bear the Service Tax Registration no., which was not in conformity with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 2002. In view of the above, claims of refund were sanctioned only for amount ₹ 7,76,408/- (for period July 2009 to September 2009) and ₹ 1,96,259/- (for April 2009 to June 2009) by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered for granting refund. 4.2 It is submitted that, Commr. (Appeals) has failed to consider the fact that Assistant Commr. in his earlier O-I-O has passed favourable orders where Embroidery Software was exported by appellant for previous periods also in January 2008 to March 2008 and from July 2008 to September 2008 and classified them as 'BAS'. Since in this case there was no change of facts and applicable regulations, Commr. (Appeals) should not have taken different view and disallowed refund claim in part on that basis. 4.3 Further, the Commr. (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the declaration submitted by the appellant in terms of circular no. 12/02/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 certified by the statutory auditors that the tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
