9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation of the input services or input credit with the export of service. The reasons for rejection by the authorities below are erroneous and the same are set aside - Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.ST/88527/2018 - A/85877/2019 - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.B. Mane, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER: ANIL CHOUDHARY The issue in this appeal is whether the refund of CENVAT Credit has been rightly denied in terms of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No.27/2012 CE dated 18.06.2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in India only, by the foreign affiliates, appears to be no export of service and therefore the question of sanction of any refund would not arise. Further referring to Para 2 of CBEC Circular No.141/10/2011 dated 13.05.2011, it has been clarified that in a situation where the consultancy though paid by client located outside India is actually used in respect of product for the activity in India, the service cannot be said to be used outside India. Further, a reference was also made to Rule 9 of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and as such it appeared to Revenue that the claim is fit to be rejected. It is further alleged that from all the related output service invoices issued by the Appellant that there is no description of services given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipient in this case is located outside India, place of provision of service is outside India and therefore in terms of Rule 6A(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service provided by the Appellant qualifies for export of service, as all other conditions of Rule 6A(1) ibid are not disputed by the Adjudicating authority. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Appellant has exported their services. As regards the observations of the Adjudicating authority FIRCs, it was held that the Adjudicating authority have travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice, as no such allegation were in the SCN. Further the rejection of refund was upheld on the ground of tabulation of export turnover being not proper. 6. Being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
