9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) dated 18.6.2012. The adjudicating authority had observed that appellant is another establishment of M/s Master Card Mobile Transactions Solutions Inc., Illinois, the service receiver, and the appellant had failed to clarify whether M/s. C-Sam Ink has provided services to its Indian customers. Hence the Adjudicating Authority had found that provision of service happens to be in India for consumption, hence the said service appeared to be outside the ambit of export of service and not in accordance with the Rule3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, as - "(a) such service is provided from India and used outside India". 2. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Div-I, Vadodara-I vide Order-in-Original No. Div-I-/ST/70/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settled by the tribunal. There was no need to again remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for considering afresh. He further submits that subsequently this tribunal in the appellants own case vide Order No. A/13799-13800/2017 dated 22 November, 2017 finally allowed the refund by allowing the appeal. The identical issue was involved in these appeals, therefore, the dispute raised by the department came to at rest. At this situation the Adjudicating Authority to whom the matter was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Adjudicating Authority need not to again revisit the issue that whether the service was exported, the appellant is exporter of service, etc. He further submits that the case which was decided by Tribunal finall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the respondent is construed to be another custodian of their service receiver. Therefore, the service provided appears to be outside the provisions of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, hence the refund claim filed by the respondents sought to be rejected. 3. The adjudicating authority allowed the part of refund claim filed by the respondent and rejected part refund claim. The refund claim which was allowed by the adjudicating authority was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Against the said order, the Revenue is before me. 4. The case of the Revenue is that the services supplied by the respondent are not export of service as they are providing the services to the recipi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
