9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Shri S. B. P. Sinha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of that case are that the appellant are exporter of service under Market Research Agency Services. For the period from April 2012 to June 2012 appellant filed claim for refund of Service Tax paid on the services exported under Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005. The claim was for an amount of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0% 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/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l benefit of refund under the said Notification No. 11/2005-ST. He has submitted that the invoice for the export related to the present refund claim was raised on 30.06.2012 and in terms of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005, export was completed on 30.06.2012 and therefore, the appellant is entitle for refund under the said notification though the said notification has no effect after 01.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration which was raised on 30.06.2012, it is very clear under the said Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 that export of service was provided on 30.06.2012. Therefore, I hold that the said Notification No. 11/2005-ST was applicable to the appellant for the subject export. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 6. To sum up, the appeal is allowed. (Order dictated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
