9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted refund on the very same set of facts, that too, for a later year, which is also a fact on record. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40512-40513 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 40964-40965 / 2019 - Dated:- 25-7-2019 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are exporters of service under the category of Information Technology Software Service ( ITSS for short) and had filed two applications for refund both dated 21.06.2017 for the periods from April 2016 to September 2016 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h) of the Notification, which fact was also acknowledged in the Show Cause Notices itself; (v) The appellant had satisfied the requirement prescribed by the G.S.T. regime vide second proviso to Section 142 (3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017; (vi) In respect of both the appeals, the Ld. Consultant points out that there was no proposal in both the Show Cause Notices as far as rejection of refund is concerned and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority had travelled beyond the Show Cause Notices; (vii) Without prejudice to the above, the rejection was made on a wrong assumption that same amount was not debited in the ST-3 return and that therefore, the same was hit by paragraph 2 (h) of the Notification; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted a wrong export turnover; (xiv) As submitted earlier, even there was no proposal of rejection of refund in the Show Cause Notices issued; 4. Per contra, Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, opposing the contentions of the Ld. Consultant, however supported the findings of the lower authorities. He contended that the condition at paragraph 2(h) is a mandatory one and by non-fulfilment of the same, the appellant would become ineligible for claiming the refund. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.). 6. I have considered the rival co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. Advocate for the appellant. 7.2 Following the above ratio, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot sustain. 7.3 In addition to the above, I also find the assertion of the Ld. Consultant for the appellant to be true as regards the proposals in the Show Cause Notices as to the rejection of refund, which is not there. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority has clearly travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice, for which reason also the rejection of refund cannot sustain. Moreover, the Revenue has granted refund on the very same set of facts, that too, for a later year, which is also a fact on record. 8. Considering all the above facts, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals stand allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
