TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Case remanded back to the original authority with a direction to decide the claim of the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/400/2012-DB - Final Order No. 20243/2019 - Dated:- 7-3-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. C. J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected the appeal by placing reliance of the CESTAT decision in the case of mPortal (India) Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which held that credit could not be availed prior to registration. Commissioner(Appeals) has also placed reliance in the case of Fine Care Biosystems Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2010(20) STR 241 (Tri. Ahmd.)] holding that appellants are eligible for refund claim subject to conditions that credit is admissible. Further the learned Commissioner(Appeals) relied upon the decision of Convergys India Pvt. Ltd. [2009(16) STR 198 (Tri.)] holding that without questioning the credits taken, the eligibility to rebate cannot be questioned. Further the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement under the provisions of cenvat credit to obtain registration before availing credit, hence rejection of the claim on this ground was not proper. Learned consultant further submitted that the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that input service invoices and export invoices do not contain all the mandatory details is not justified. He further submitted that perusal of the export invoices and the sample copies of input service invoices, it is clear that the appellant has raised the invoices in terms of Rule 4A and the input tax credit invoices comply with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Conduent Business India LLP decided by CESTAT vide Final Order No.21630 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants have vehemently claimed that they are engaged in export of BPO services and have filed rebate claims in terms of Notification No.11/2005-ST and amounts as per export invoices have been realized in foreign currency. They have also claimed that they have submitted CA certificate also. We find that the appellants have rightly placed reliance on Hon ble CESTAT Bangalore s decision in the case of IVY Comptech Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein it was held that exercise of correctness of CENVAT credit availed was not at all required as regards the provisions of Notification No.11/2005-ST. What is required to be verified while sanctioning rebate claim under the said Notification is whether service has been exported or not and whether considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
