9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Consultant for the appellant, used in the places located beyond the factory or the place of manufacture, like tailoring units, corporate office, clearing and forwarding services, advertisement, legal and accounting services, etc., which were obviously not located within the factory premises. The reasons attributed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be sustained since there is no doubt that these services were not used in the factory of production but in any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the said goods, for their export. In view of this alone, it is seen that the appellant satisfies the conditions of N/N. 41/2012 ibid., as substituted vide N/N. 01/2016 ibid., and therefore, the denial cannot be sustained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Service Tax paid on input services is involved, the same are taken up together for the sake of convenience. 2.1 The undisputed facts, as could be gathered from the documents placed on record, are that the appellant is an exporter of readymade garments; the appellant would get the garments manufactured/tailored through job workers located in and around Gurgaon, which were sold online i.e., exported by courier from Delhi airport to their customers, mainly in U.S.A. They are also the holders of Service Tax registration for their Chennai office premises to discharge their Service Tax liability under reverse charge mechanism in respect of certain taxable services. 2.2 It is useful to refer Table-II at paragraph 2.3, page number 19 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139/2019 2559448 327006 175629 179145 1818671 182818 2328495 (CTA-I) (CN) 16.05.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not eligible for refund in respect of the services mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 14 of the Table:I at paragraph 17.2, page number 4 of the Order-in-Original No. 60/2018-(R) dated 31.03.2019. The Adjudicating Authority-Assistant Commissioner, however, agrees that the appellant has satisfied the various conditions under paragraphs 1 (c) (d) (e) of Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The Assistant Commissioner also agrees as to the appellant s fulfilling paragraph 3 (g) of the Notification ibid. as regards limitation is concerned. The above denial of refund was upheld vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 234-237/2019 (CTA-I) dated 31.07.2019. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 3. Heard Shri M. Ponnus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory of production but in any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the said goods, for their export. In view of this alone, it is seen that the appellant satisfies the conditions of Notification No. 41/2012 ibid., as substituted vide Notification No. 01/2016 ibid., and therefore, the denial cannot be sustained. Revenue has not doubted about the nature of service at the tailoring units, corporate office, clearing and forwarding services, advertisement, legal and accounting services, etc. To this extent, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. 5.1 The second reason attributed for rejection of refund from the impugned order in respect of courier bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
