9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and not under Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Besides, I also find that the Department has allowed refund claims for the earlier and subsequent period, hence denying the claim for the impugned period without change in circumstances, in my opinion, is devoid of merit and accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Alleging that the services namely, Computer Data Processing in relation to Accounting and Professional services rendered to M/s SurePrep LLC, USA for preparation of Income Tax Returns of the USA clients, did not fall under the scope of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, being not export, accordingly, refund claims were rejected. Aggrieved by the same, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. from October, 2016 to March, 2017, refund claims were also sanctioned by the Department. It is her contention that only for the period from April, 2016 to September, 2016, the refund claims were rejected alleging the services are not 'export'. The learned C.A. further argued that the present refund claim falls within the scope of Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns and Software Development Support services to the said overseas client. The entire services rendered by the appellant to the overseas customers have been consumed in the foreign territory. The findings of the learned adjudicating authority and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the relevant data were processed in India and ultimately sent to the foreign company, hence not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
