9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment between his dealers by which the appellants are under obligation to supply the parts under free warranty replacement, then in that case no monetary consideration flow from the buyer and therefore the department’s view that bank realization certificate has not been produced is not justified ground for refusal of the refund - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/26976-26977/2013-SM - Final Order No.20509-20510/2017 - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Mr Sudeshna Benerjee, Adv - For the Appellant Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER The appellants have filed these two appeals against a common impugned order dated 20.3.2013 passed by Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 2012 to June 2012 79/2012(R) dated 28.09.2012 73/2013 dated 20.03.2013 ₹ 1,42,614/- Heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying the refund of service tax paid on courier services used for export of goods under Notification No. 52/2011-ST dated 30.12.2011 is wrong and not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by mis-construing the provisions of the Notification. He further submitted that the appellants have fulfilled all the substantial conditions and are eligible for refund under Notification No. 52/2011 dated 30.12.2011. The condition of realization within the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the banks. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the appellants have exported the spare parts to their dealers abroad by way of free warranty replacement as per their contract which is placed on record and for exporting the said components they have availed the services of courier agency for which they have paid the service tax. I also find that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have not produced any evidence to prove that the goods are exported within the warranty period of replacement free of cost is wrong because the appellant has produced the invoices on record which clearly shows that it is free warranty replacement and the invoices have been produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
