9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om recipient abroad, I do not consider that agreement plays such an important role that the refund claim itself has to be rejected. In any case, assignment clearly shows that the agreement has been transferred in favour of the present recipient. Nexus issue has to be held in favour of the appellant in accordance with law. Nevertheless on merit also, the appellant is eligible for the refund, in my opinion, since services made in Order-in-Original are covered by precedent decisions of this Tribunal and the decisions of various High Courts in the country. Only doubt is in respect of Cafeteria service where this Tribunal has taken a view that if any amount has been collected from employees, admissible amount to be reduced proportionately. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 174 (Tri.-Bang.)] and submits that where the service recipient is located abroad and paid consideration in convertible foreign exchange and services are used by the recipient abroad and service is covered by Rule 3(ii) of Export of Services Rules, output service has to be treated as exported. In this case, I agree with the submission that recipient is located abroad, service though provided in India, has been used by the recipient abroad only. There is no contrary finding that service is not covered by Rule 3(ii) of Export of Services Rules. The decision relied upon by learned Counsel is also applicable to the facts of this case. 3. The second ground for rejection of claim is that there is no agreement between SVB Financial Group and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Courts in the country. Only doubt is in respect of Cafeteria service where this Tribunal has taken a view that if any amount has been collected from employees, admissible amount to be reduced proportionately. In any case, when the original authority considers the refund claim, Cenvat credit attributable to Cafeteria can be reduced proportionately. 5. In view of above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to consider the refund claim in accordance with the observations hereinabove after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. 6. Since the refund claim is of the year 2008, the original authority is requested to ensure that refund claim is settle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
