9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Govind Rai Garg, CA Present for the Respondent: Mr. Harish Saini, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals-II), New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein, is a merchant exporter engaged in export of Additive LKS 7647 under Chapter sub-heading 3811 3100 of the HSN. During the period April 2015 to March, 2016, the respondent had filed the refund application in terms of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012, claiming refund of Service Tax paid on the taxable services used for exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that since the respondent had filed the refund application under paragraph 3 of the Notification dated 29.06.2012, the said paragraph should have been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue of refund. Thus, he submits that since the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered paragraph 1 (a)(A) (i) of the said Notification, it has travelled beyond the scope of the refund application and as such, the claim is not maintainable in favour of the respondent. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Consultant appearing for the respondent submits that since the respondent is a merchant exporter and the entire goods procured from Super Smelter were exported by it, the benefit of the exemption Notification dated 29.06.2012 should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the overseas buyers. For procuring the goods from M/s. Super Smelters Ltd., the appellant paid 2% purchase commission and the entire transaction of purchase and sale were reflected in the balance-sheet for the relevant period. Since the respondents, as a merchant exporter, had exported the entire goods procured by it from domestic sources, the benefit of refund claim provided under the Notification should be available to it. Further, I find that the disputed services involved in this case were used/ utilized by the appellant in or in relation to exportation of goods. Since the Department has not specifically alleged that the entire goods were not exported by the respondent, the refund claim cannot be denied on the procedural conditions. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
