TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. Venkat Prasad, Consultant for the Appellant. Sh. P.S. Reddyy Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the part of the rebate claim. 2. The appellants are registered as service providers under Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) and Business Support Service (BSS) and are providing services domestically and also exporting services in terms of Export of Services Rules, 2005. In case of services exported the appellant paid the service tax by utilising the accumulated CENVAT Credit. 3. On 27.08.2010 the appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond the jurisdiction of the rebate sanctioning authority while adjudicating the issue of sanctioning rebate. The appellant had taken this very same contention in the previous case for an earlier period and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 21100-21101/2015 dated 06.05.2015 had discussed the issue and held the same in favour of the appellants. He submitted that the credit on input services has been denied for the reason that these services do not have nexus with the output services and also for the reason that certain documents are not proper. That as per the notification the rebate sanctioning authority has to look into only whether the services are exported and whether the service tax is paid. As the department does not dispute these facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been received for the exported service and whether the tax has been paid on the service exported or not. Other than this, no other verification is required. Therefore on this ground also, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In view of the above discussion, appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. 7. As the fact of export of services as well as the payment of service tax on the services exported is not in dispute, I am of the view, that the rejection of rebate is unjustified Following the judgment in the above stated Final Order which has attained finality, I hold that the rejection of rebate is unjustified. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the rebate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
