9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98/- was denied to the appellant vide order-in-original no. Refund/RKS/52/2015 dated 16.06.2015 that ultimately attained confirmity in the Order-in-Appeal. The Grounds of rejection are different in both orders. Order-in-originals indicates that appellant failed to submit required documents to establish that the services were to be treated as export of service while Order-in- Appeal indicates that from the ST-3 returns submitted by the appellant, the exact amount of credit to be availed for those two quarters could not be ascertained. 3. In the appeal memo and during the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that for the same nature of services two consecutive orders of the adjudicating authorities per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount on quarterly basis, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the two subsequent orders-in-original submitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case clearly reveal the total amount of cenvat credit held to be admissible and the balance amount pertains to the period of dispute which could have been easily assessed by the Commissioner in holding his finding in favour of the appellant, for which he prays for setting aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and allowing the credit for the period under dispute in favour of the appellant. 4. Ld. AR for the department has responded to the submission of ld. Counsel for the appellant and stated that no infirmity or illegality can be found from the order of the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant as appellant themselves had attended the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. After the personal hearing before me, appellant had submitted copy of the agreement and few order-in- originals through which refund claim for the subsequent periods had been sanctioned. 6.1. On perusal of the of Terms of Service Agreement entered between the appellant (service provider) and M/s Janoschka Kippenhelm GmbH, Germany (service receiver) effective from 01.10.2013, I find that the service provider would produce the professional services of prepress and graphic services for packaging and agreed to pay fees for such services. I find that the term "service" has been defined under Section 65(b) 44 of the Finance Act, 1994, according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch credit has been debited is not in conformity with the spirit of the statute since substantial justice can only be pitted against technical consideration. Therefore, the submission of the ld. AR that at the time of making claim for refund under Rule 5, amount is to be debited from the cenvat credit account in advance can never stand as a hindrance in providing the refund to the appellant since in the case of rejection he had no option to re-credit the same to the cenvat credit account on its own. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that agreement for sale need not be necessarily a written one in a pre-defined format. It can be through oral agreement or written request made in letter correspondence. It can also be offer and acceptance com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
