9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of 2018, 12555 of 2018, 13021 of 2018 - A/12240-12242/2019 - Dated:- 27-11-2019 - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate for the Appellant Shri T. K. Sikdar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claim of the unutilized Cenvat Credit on input services used in the export of Information Technology Software service under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012. The adjudicating authority had observed that appellant is another establishment of M/s Master Card Mobil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside vide order No. A/13691-13692/2017 dated 17.11.2017 and the cases were remanded back to the First Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara with a direction to decide the issue in spirit of Order dated 30.6.2016 in the appellants own case. Wherein, the refund was allowed to the appellant. On remand proceeding, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-102-103-2018-19 dated 27.6.2018 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 5. Sh. S. Thirumalai (Advocate), Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the outset submits that since the issue was already settled by the tribunal. There was no need to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile the tribunal has passed order No. A/13799-13800/2017 dated 22.11.2017 wherein, the identical issue was involved, the only difference was the period. The said Order is reproduced below. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has sanctioned the refund claims to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent executed an agreement with C. Sam Inc., in USA, the service receiver and M/s. C-Sam Solutions Pvt. Limited, suggests that the service receiver is engaged in business of tele-communication and mobile software development and is holding Company of the service receiver, therefore, the respondent is a subsidiary of the service rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and observed as under:- 10.In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that as the appellant has provided the service of procuring purchase orders for their foreign clients and providing maintenance service to the Indian buyers during the warranty period on behalf of their foreign clients on the instructions of foreign clients are covered by the Rule 3(3) of Export of Taxable Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the appellant are not required to pay Service Tax during the impugned period for their activity. Accordingly, they are entitled for refund claim. 6. In view of the above analysis, I hold that, as the respondent service in India to the customers of their principal located outside India, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
