TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarter and out of which, 30,000 USD relates to the third quarter. Accordingly, it is found that the rejection of the refund claim is bad. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purposes of verifying the aforementioned bill which has been raised for the two quarters, as the copy of the same is not available before this Tribunal. - Service Tax Appeal No.50013 of 2019 - SM - Final Order No.51357/2019 - Dated:- 26-6-2019 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Awadesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent. : Ms. Tamnna Alam, Authorised Representative ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: This appeal is filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exported during the third quarter. Further, it is observed that the refund of proportionate cenvat credit on account of export turnover, is not admissible for this quarter. 3. It is further observed that the appellant should have filed similar refund claim covering the third and 4th quarter of financial year 2016-2017. As according to the appellant, they have export turnover in 4th quarter. Further, it is also observed that refund of credit is admissible in proportion to the export turnover during the relevant period. It is also observed that the amount of 50,000 USD has been realised on 13.12.2016. 4. Thereafter, as the appellant had already filed refund for the 4th quarter, which had been processed and allowed for an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarter itself. He further points out from the order-in-original dated 29.06.2018, which has been passed against the revised claim, wherein in their defence, the appellant had pointed out that invoice no.PSRL/16-17/06 dated 19.09.2016 for USD 50000 relates to Scientific Research Services upto December, 2016. Thus, evidently, the invoice was for more than one quarter i.e. for the 2nd and the 3rd quarter and the amount of 50000 USD is also attributable to the 2nd and 3rd quarter jointly. Accordingly, he states that rejection of refund claim is bad, both on facts and also in law, for failure on the part of the court below to determine correctly their export turnover for the 3rd quarter i.e. October to December, 2016. He submits that as the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
