9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Appellant has submitted that refund claim for Rs. 13,44,979/- being the Service Tax paid on the input services used for providing service exported during the period from May, 2008 to September, 2008 has been rejected on the following grounds : (i) The Agreement was with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) whereas the service has been provided to M/s. SVB Financial Group. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the present recipient. 4. As regards nexus, even though the original authority held that there was no nexus between input services and output service, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered this issue and has not discussed the issue while considering the appeal filed by the assessee. Revenue has not filed any appeal. In the absence of any discussion, it means that the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tributable 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
