9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l requisite details such as description, value, amount of duty payable on input services actually required to be used in providing taxable services to be exported. I find inconsistency between the order of the adjudicating authority and that of the Appellate Authority. - No doubt regarding actual use, as has been raised. The fact that the date of input service invoices need not be of the same date or of around the same date as the date of the export is a very natural and normal phenomena. When the whole process of receiving input service and providing output service is a continuous ongoing process, it is quite natural that there will be time lag. The appellants have been providing all the details of input service and the output service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the output service, which is exported. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of ₹ 1,47,539/- on the ground that the appellant had claimed rebate of Service Tax on bills which are prior to the date of declaration under Notification No. 12/2005 and also prior to the date of export, which is October, 2010. He held that the bills prior to the date of export have nothing to do with the period of export to which the refund claim pertains. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this finding stating that the claimant of rebate is required to prove the actual use of the input services for the service exported. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :- (i) It is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions. In this case, rebate has been sought under the provisions of Notification No. 12/2005 issued in terms of Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, framed under Notification No. 9/2005, dated 3-3-2005. I find that there is no dispute on the fact that the appellant had followed the procedure laid down in the notification regarding filing of declaration giving all requisite details such as description, value, amount of duty payable on input services actually required to be used in providing taxable services to be exported. I find inconsistency between the order of the adjudicating authority and that of the Appellate Authority. Whereas the adjudicating authority states that the bills of input services are of a period which has nothing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation and is to be rejected. The appellants have been providing all the details of input service and the output service and a major portion of the refund claim amounting to ₹ 9,08,188/- was sanctioned based on same facts of use of input services for providing output service. The amount of ₹ 1,47,539/- was rejected only on the ground that the period of export is October 10, whereas the period of invoice relating to input service is different. There is no requirement under Notification No. 12/2005 that the period should be same or that the declaration should be filed before the date of the input invoice. Therefore, I allow the rebate claim as valid in law. 5.1 The appellant also contended that the refund claim was rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
