9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e providers exporting 100% of its services, such disputes should not arise and refund of CENVAT credit irrespective of when he has taken the credit, should be granted if otherwise in order. Rejection of refund not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/85747/2017-SM - A/85449/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Mr. SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri Narendra Patil, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri Suresh Kumar, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 28/12/2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) whereby he has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in law as the same has been passed without considering the statutory provisions and the submissions made by the appellant. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, conjunctures and surmises and without proper consideration of facts and records. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original was passed by the Deputy Commissioner without even giving an opportunity of hearing which is gross violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the original authority has not issued a show-cause notice and has not afforded an opportunity of hearing in relation to rejection of CENVAT credit refund claim. He further submitted that in the absence of a show-cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n over. Hence the amount of export invoice raised during the quarter would be considered as Export Turnover. Further the appellant has filed the periodic ST returns and he has shown the gross value of service on the basis of invoice raised during the relevant period. He also submitted that both the authorities below have held that the appellant was required to follow the new refund Notification No.27/2012 issued in supersession of earlier Notification w.e.f. 18/06/2012. To counter this, the learned counsel submitted that in the present case the relevant period was April 2012 to June 2012 and which is substantial part of the period is covered under the old notification. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
