TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the rejection of rebate on this ground is not sustainable. The appellant has included the said service along with the value of service provided to the domestic customers and the learned counsel has submitted that he has already provided the value of service exported on which service tax was paid and the same comes to ₹ 1,95,50,854/- - For verification of this amount, the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the rebate amount. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/20811/2017-SM - 20482/2018 - Dated:- 8-3-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. Cherian Punnoose, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the Department issued a show-cause notice dated 04.05.2012 proposing to reject the rebate claim on the ground that no document was produced to show that the amount shown as service tax in ST-3 return includes the value of taxable services exported on payment of service tax and consequently under Rule 4A invoices were prepared after the receipt of FIRC and service tax was also paid after receipt of FIRC which is in violation of the Notification No. 11/2005. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 26.09.2012 confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice and rejected the rebate claim of ₹ 20,13,729/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine only). Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irty Two only) declared as taxable value in the ST-3 return for the period included the value of services provided to domestic customers as well as value of service provided to foreign customers on which service tax was discharged by the appellant. it is his further submission that ST-3 return prescribed by the Board does not provide for any column for exhibiting the value of service exported on which service tax was discharged. Therefore, the appellant included the same along with the value of services provided to the domestic customers. He also submitted that the value of services exported on which service tax was paid by the appellant was ₹ 1,95,50,854/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted on mere technicalities. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case it is not disputed that the service tax has been paid on the services exported. The Revenue has raised the objection that service tax has been paid after receipt of FIRC which is in violation of the Notification. I have seen the Notification and the conditions under Notification 11/2005 and I find that there is no such restriction under the Notification that the service tax has to be paid at the time of provision of service. Rather as per Export of Service Rules service is completed only on receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
