TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their case and adjudicating authority has made up his mind without taking into consideration the facts and contention of the appellant on the issue. Insofar as the rejection of refund of Rs. 27,33,267/- is concerned, it is to be examined whether the export took place on 30.06.2012 or after that. It is crucial to examine the issue because after 01.07.2012 the said Notification No. 11/2005-ST did not have force of law. The notification states that the services should be exported in terms of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 to be eligible to avail the benefit of said notification - Taking the relevant invoice into consideration which was raised on 30.06.2012, it is very clear under the said Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proceeds of export after 01.07.2012. An amount of Rs. 13,77,971/- was rejected stating that 50% of the export proceeds were received in INR. The appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the said Order-in-Original dated 12.08.2014. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that so far as a rejection of refund of Rs. 13,77,971/- is concerned, the same was not included in the show cause notice. His contention is that the show cause notice did not put the appellant on notice that the amount of Rs. 13,77,971/- would be rejected for the reason that the export proceeds contained 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejection of refund of Rs.13,77,971/- is concerned, the appellant were not issued with a show cause notice for the ground on which the same was rejected. The appellant did not get opportunity to present their case. Therefore, I hold that, that part of the order is not sustainable since the appellant could not present their case and adjudicating authority has made up his mind without taking into consideration the facts and contention of the appellant on the issue. 5. Insofar as the rejection of refund of Rs. 27,33,267/- is concerned, it is to be examined whether the export took place on 30.06.2012 or after that. It is crucial to examine the issue because after 01.07.2012 the said Notification No. 11/2005-ST did not have force of law. I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
