TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice as per Rule 3(3)(i) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The same view was taken by this Tribunal in Blue Star v. CCE[2014 (12) TMI 25 - CESTAT MUMBAI] Although payment has been received in Indian currency on behalf of the service recipient located in India from the service provider and in that case it was held that it is a case of export of service. Therefore, following decision in National Engineering Industries Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 759 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) I hold that the appellant complied with the condition of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for refund claim. No infirmity in the impugned order in allowing the refund claim in respect of the excess amount paid by them. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed partly the refund claim on the premise that they have made payment twice, therefore they are entitled for refund of the excess amount paid by them. On merits, he rejected the claim holding that the service of the appellant does not fall under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant is in appeal and the Revenue also filed Cross Objections to the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. Heard the parties. 4. In this case the activity of the appellant is that they are marketing the product of their foreign counterpart and for which they are receiving certain commission in India. It is also alleged that the said commission has been received by the appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt located in India from the service provider and in that case it was held that it is a case of export of service. Therefore, following decision in National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) I hold that the appellant complied with the condition of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for refund claim. 6. With regard to Cross Objections filed by Revenue, para 11 of the impugned order deals with the situation which is reproduced below : 11. (i) In the case of refund claim of Service Tax of ₹ 17,88,542/-, the appellant had actually paid, as per records submitted, only ₹ 16,53,240/- under four challans on 6-2-2007. The differential amount of ₹ 1,35,302/- (17,88,542 - 16,53,240), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
