TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the input services used for services provided outside India, the same is required under condition No. 5 of Notification No. 5/2006. So far this ground is concerned, I find from the Order-in-Original that this was not the ground of rejection of refund, hence not sustainable. As the said finding of Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged, I hold that this ground is also not sustainable. No substantial question is raised vide ground Nos. (iv) & (vi) and the same stand rejected - Decided against Revenue. - ST/85584 to 85587/14 - Final Order Nos. A/1230-1237/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 15-7-2014 - Anil Choudhary, J. For the Appellant : Shri Ashutosh Nath, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Atul Mathuria, CA. PER : Ani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see M/s Monetization Software Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in providing taxable services falling under the category of Information Technology Software Services and is registered with the Service Tax Department. Further, the appellant exported services which are in respect of Computer Software Services and accordingly preferred claim of refund under the amended Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2008-CX(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The claims were rejected vide the Orders-in-Original dated 18.6.2010 mainly on the ground that the invoices are raised in the name of different parties whereas the remitter of foreign exchange appears to be different. The address on some of the input invoices of the appellant are not proper as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alad, Mumbai which was subsequently changed sometime in year 2009. In this regard, it is pointed out by the Counsel from page 41 of the Cross-Objection which is a copy of the refund claim, in the footnote both the address is shown of the registered office and corporate office at Andheri and Malad. As such, the discrepancy pointed out by the adjudicating authority does not stand. Further, as regards the difference in the value of the services, it is stated that the value of services rendered and the value of invoices raised can never be the same with regard to remittance received during the relevant period and it is not a discrepancy. Further, reference was drawn at page 30 of the Cross-objection, which is a copy of ST-3 return for the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er appellate authority and also the points urged in cross-objection field before the Tribunal. The next ground (iii) taken in the appeal is nexus is required to be proved of the input services used for services provided outside India, the same is required under condition No. 5 of Notification No. 5/2006. So far this ground is concerned, I find from the Order-in-Original that this was not the ground of rejection of refund, hence not sustainable. The next ground taken is with regard to address mentioned on some of the invoices, which is at Link Way Estate, Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai, which is appropriately explained by the respondent in the cross-objection and a categorical finding is also recorded in para 8 of the impugned order. As the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
