TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processed the same under the said provisions - Both the authorities have also not considered the fact that the appellant has charged service tax to their foreign service recipient - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/464/12-Mum - A/88150/17/STB - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri L. Badrinarayanan, Advocate, for appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant provided business auxiliary services to their overseas principal M/s. ABN Amro Asia Finance Ltd., Hong Kong. The services provided by the appellant is of marketing of services provided by the Hong Kong comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinarayanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that there is no receipt that the appellant has provided services to foreign based company in Hong Kong and the realization was made in convertible foreign currency. Therefore the transaction is squarely qualified as export of service. The appellant filed refund claim in Form-R as against Form ASTR-1. This is only a procedural lapse. Just because of filing of refund in different form, the substantive benefit of refund claim cannot be denied. He submits that both the authorities have passed a non-speaking order as the submissions of the appellant have not been considered in toto. He further submits that the identical issue, this Tribunal in the case of CST, Mumbai-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 462-CESTAT-DEL; ii) Deputy Commissioner of CE Vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-820-HC-MAD-CX, affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in - 2015 (325) ELT A104 (SC). 3. Shri M.P. Damle, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that all the arguments made by the learned counsel were not taken before both the authorities. Therefore, the same should not be considered. He further submits that Section 11B is applicable in case of refund/rebate of service tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the limitation provided under Section 11B is clearly applicable in the present case. In the judgments relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
