2011 (3) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 146/2010 dt. 26.8.2010.   2. Heard both sides.   3. Original authority vide order dt. 13.1.2010 sanctioned refund of service tax of Rs.1,54,797/- in respect of services utilized in connection with export in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST dt. 6.10.2007. The impugned goods have been exported during the period January to March 09. Against ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt, the taxable value of each of the Shipping Bills was discussed / verified with the ST3 filed.   iii) In respect of SB No.6324557 dt. 09.02.2009, the commission amount to be remitted abroad as per form-2 is 281 EURO whereas in BRC, it is indicated as 337.20 EURO. Further, in respect of SB NRO whereas in the BRC, it is indicated as 4069.27 EURO . The actual amount of commission paid and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,855/- towards Foreign Commission agency services. The other arguments put forth by the respondents do not come to their help, as they have no relevance to this case. In the result, the order of the lower authority is modified and the refund of service tax of Rs.1,50,855/- towards the Foreign Commission Agency services is hereby rejected, which was sanctioned erroneously.   4. Ld. advocat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner (Appeals) has recorded discrepancies as narrated above and held that the appellants have not produced the relevant documents to reconcile the discrepancies. Submissions have been made that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in the light of certain documents having been presented before the original authority. Primarily, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been pass....