9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, under the "Served from India Scheme", for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. 3 It has been stated that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of total logistics service provider, which includes activities related to Multi model Transport Operator, Freight forwarding, Customs clearance, etc. The petitioner is registered with the Service Tax Department and it has been regularly remitting the service tax for the services rendered in India, which are taxable in terms of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner is also registered with the Service Export Promotion Council, as a service provider, under the heading "Supporting Services for Maritime Transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dures states that the payment, for services received from EEFC account, is not entitled to be taken into consideration for the calculation of the entitlement under "Served from India Scheme". While so, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), New Delhi. The office of the DGFT, New Delhi, vide letter dated 31.3.2015, had advised the petitioner to bring the documents, submitted before it, to the notice of the second respondent, for reconsideration. Accordingly, the petitioner had made a representation to the respondents, on 13.4.2015, along with the certificates, dated 30.1.2014 and 27.1.2014, issued by the HSBC Bank and Andhra Bank, respectively, stating that the remittances received w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had further stated that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner before the impugned orders had been passed by the second respondent. It has been stated that the first respondent is the competent authority to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it has been prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned orders of the second respondent, dated 29.10.2015, and to direct the first respondent to pass a reasoned order, considering the applications of the petitioner, dated 13.10.2015, for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
