9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of export of service. Thus qualifies as Export of Service under the Export of Taxable Service Rules, 2005 - decided in favor of respondent. Whether the CESTAT is right in holding that the Respondent herein are entitled for refund when there is no application made under the prescribed format under the relevant provisions of law and without complying the procedural formalities prescribed under the law? - Held that:- From the facts available on record, it was never the case of the Revenue that there was unjust enrichment on the part of the Respondent – Assessee. It seems to have accepted the assessee's stand that there is no unjust enrichment was made in the refund application. As at no point of time before the first Authority or Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct as falling within the Export of Taxable Service Rule, 2005. This being the service tax paid for the period August 2005 to July, 206. The service provided by the Respondent to their foreign clients was of procuring purchase orders for them. On the purchase orders being communicated to foreign clients, they are supplying goods to the intended buyers in India, directly. The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent's Appeal seeking a refund of service tax paid over for the period August, 2005 to July, 2006 as claimed. This by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in SGS India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 34 STR p.554. 4. Re.:- Question No.1. (i). We find that an identical nature of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t hit by unjust enrichment as the service tax was paid out of the commission received by them. Consequent to refund application dated 13th October, 2006, the revenue issued show cause notice dated 5th December, 2006. The show cause notice is not annexed to the appeal memo filed by the Revenue. However on reading the order in original it appears that no ground to reject the refund application on ground of unjust enrichment seems to have been raised by the Revenue. Therefore, from the facts available on record, it was never the case of the Revenue that there was unjust enrichment on the part of the Respondent Assessee. It seems to have accepted the assessee's stand that there is no unjust enrichment was made in the refund application. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
