9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no refund is payable to the appellant on the basis of erroneous application of the formula is required to be set aside. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ero, while Rule of Algebra clearly indicates that anything divided by zero would be undeterminable. 4. Apart from that, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that it is a settled principle of law and followed by many Tribunals as a judicial President, including the one reported M/s. Kijiji (India) P. Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, (2013 29 Tax mann Comm. 252 Mumbai, CESTAT, that in case of export of services, such nexus is not required to be established besides the facts that Board's circular on simplified scheme for refunds also is not in favour of establishment of such co-relationship. In placing reliance to judicial decisions reported in [2016 (4) TMI 112]-CESTAT Mumbai, [2015 (6) TMI 964]-CESTAT Mumbai, [2015 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terference in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is uncalled for. 6. Heard from both the sides and peruse the case record. Appellant had filed the refund claim under notification no. 27/2012-C(NT). Para 2 (e) of the said notification reads as follows:- (e) in respect of the services, for the purpose of computation of total turnover, the value of export of service shall be determined in accordance with clause (D) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the said rules. (D)-Export turnover of services mean the value of the export service calculated in the following manner, namely:- Export turnover of services= payments received during the relevant period for export services+ export services whose provision has been completed for which payment had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got that much amount as refund. Further to a query made by this Court, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted in writing that advance payment received during the relevant period for export of services was ₹ 2,246/- USD and having examined the Foreign Exchange remittance note produced before him, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had given is finding that the refund claim was filed within the stipulated period of one year. This being so, I am of the considered view that appellant is entitled to get the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit since no nexus is required to be established for export of services and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that no refund is payable to the appellant on the basis of erroneous application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
