9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered with service tax from 02/04/2009, have exported Advertising Agency Services and Business Support Services and filed a rebate claim for Rs. 1,90,45,315/- under Notification No.11/05 S.T. dt. 19/04/2005 for the period 04/2009 to 09/2009. In view of the following discrepancies: (i) No correlation exists between the export invoices and the FIRCs and that Bank Certificate certifying the actual realization of the export proceeds corresponding to the export invoice amounts is not furnished; (ii) Non-furnishing of ST-3 returns for the claim period correlation of export value with details of service tax payment and details of debit; (iii) Non-furnishing of Agreement between the exporter and the client and details of service rendered (iv) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedents. He further submits that the first issue that credit cannot be taken without registration is well settled in favour of the appellant vide series of decisions cited below:- a. mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2012(27) STR 134 (Kar.)] b. CST Vs. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2016(43) STR 542 (Kar.)] c. CST Vs. Atrenta India Pvt. Ltd. [2017(48) STR 361 (All.)] d. CST Vs. E-Care India Pvt. Ltd. [2017(52) STR 246 (Mad.)] 4.2. He further submitted that learned Commissioner(Appeals) has placed reliance on the decision of CESTAT in the case of mPOrtal India Wireless Solut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides and perusal of material on record, we find that the rejection of the rebate claim under Notification No.11/2005-ST dt. 19/04/2005 on the ground that the appellant was not registered is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. cited supra wherein it has been held that registration with the Department is not a prerequisite for claiming the credit. As far as other grounds on which rejection has taken place is not legally tenable because the appellants have produced all the documents in support of the rebate claim but the same have not been properly examined. We also note that the Tribunal in the case of Conduent Business India LLP, on an identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e OIOs/OIAs are not acceptable. The authorities are required to verify the requirements in terms of Notification No.11/2005-ST as cited above. Appellants have claimed that they have submitted the records, documents, certificate to that effect. In view of the same, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter should go back to the original authority for proper appreciation of the evidence submitted by the appellants and the case law cited above. 6. In view of the above, we allow all the appeals by way of remand. We direct that the original authority shall consider all the evidence and submissions of the appellants and decide upon the applications made by the appellants within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
