9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LHI (LB)], has held that since the services were provided for the benefit of the overseas service receiver, irrespective of the place of performance of service, the same should be considered as export for the benefit of non-payment of Service Tax under business auxiliary service - refund cannot be denied. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellant under reverse charge mechanism had deposited the service tax into the Government Exchequer and there was no scope on its part to collect such tax from the overseas clients - the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in this case, for denial of the refund benefit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/102/2012-CU[DB] - ST/A/58390/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) of the Rules, 2005. Further, the refund claim was also denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.10.2011, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 3. We find that in support of denial of refund benefit, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order at page 9 has discussed the following:- Further, I observe that it to qualify for refund of service tax under Export of Services Rules, 2005 the appellant had to fulfil the above mentioned two conditions. In the instant case, on perusal of Annexure F of the agreement made between the appellant and M/s. Foss Denmark it was revealed that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e eligible for consideration as export of service under Rule 3(1)(ii) ibid, is no more res-integra , in view of the co-ordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Blue Star Ltd. - 2016 (46) STR 59 (Tri.-Mum.). The Tribunal by relying on the decision in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd 2013 (29) STR 257, has held that since the services were provided for the benefit of the overseas service receiver, irrespective of the place of performance of service, the same should be considered as export for the benefit of non-payment of Service Tax under business auxiliary service. In view of the settled position of law, we do not find any merits in the impugned order for denying the refund benefit to the appellant. With regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
