2018 (8) TMI 1686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arified by the Department itself also vide their CBEC Circular No.111/05/2009-ST dated 24th February, 2009 - the absence of the agreement which is though annexed with the present appeal memo is not making any difference as far as the issue for treating such a transaction to be that of export service is concerned. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
HON'BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) And HON'BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) For the Appellant : Mr.R.Krishnan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Vivek Pandey, D.R. ORDER Per : Rachna Gupta Present is an appeal against the Order of Assistant Commissioner bearing No.1771 dated28th April, 2015. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose are that the appellant is r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Service Tax, Mumbai - 2016 (46) S.T.R. 59 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4. Commr. of Central Excise vs. Computer Sciences Corpn. India P. Ltd. - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 62 (All.). 5. Accent Overseas P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi - 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 367 (Tri. - Del.) 5. While rebutting these arguments, ld. DR has impressed upon that the orders of the adjudicating authority below have appreciated that the appellant has not cooperated the Department. Resultantly, there was no evidence available with the Department to assert the contention of the appellant and to hold the impugned services as that of export services. The demand has been levied under Best Judgement Principle. While justifying order under challenge, the ld. DR has prayed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the conditions under the Rule 3 of Export of Services Rules of 2005. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant have exported the services in question and they are not liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to the consequential benefits in accordance with law." 7. In view of the above discussion, we opine to follow the referred decisions. Resultantly, we hold that adjudicating authority below has failed to appreciate the facts of this case properly and thus has failed to apply the Circular No.111 of 24.02.2009. We therefore, set aside the order. As a result the appeal stands allowed. [ Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court ]
Case laws, Deci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X