9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/35/2011 Appeals No. ST/399/2011-Mum ST/398/2011-Mum Period 01.04.2009- 30.06.2009 01.07.2009- 30.09.2009 Refund claimed (balance in dispute) 3,78,293/- 4,89,882/- 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant "M/s Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd." are engaged in providing services under category of "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Management Consultancy Service". The issue in this case is regarding denial of refund claim. Appellant are registered as STPI unit and are engaged in exporting its services. Services provided by the appellant qualify as export of services in terms of Rule 3(1) of Export of Service Rules, 2005. Monthly invoices were raised by the appellant on its foreign client on a cost plus basis. 3. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 'Embroidery Software development' is exported out of India and as the appellant have received consideration in respect of the same in convertible foreign exchange. Hence, it should be allowed refund as the nature of service is not changed in any way, and in the past they have been granted refund on export of Embroidery Software. 4. The Learned Commr. (Appeals) considering submissions of appellant vide O-I-A allowed further refund to the extent of Rs. 63,986/- (July 2009 to September 2009) and disallowed remaining refund of amount Rs. 4,89,882/- (for April 2009 to June 2009) allowed refund to the extent of Rs. 3,90,302/- and rejected the amount Rs. 3,78,293/-. The reason recorded for rejecting the refund is that the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l pleads that presuming the activity of 'Embroidery Software development' is not a service but is a final product as stated in O-I-A, still appellant is eligible for refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 in respect of input service used in the said activity, as the said final product is exported out of India. 5. The learned AR relies on the findings mentioned in impugned orders. 6. Heard both the parties. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant are entitled to refund claim in respect of input service credit availed by the appellants on inputs used in 'Embroidery Software development' as it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not claimed the refund of Cenvat credit twice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
