2012 (6) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the appellant had not produced documentary evidence to show the quantum of export turnover and domestic turnover and documentary proof to show the nexus between the software exported and the input services utilized for the purpose. After considering the reply given by the appellants, the original adjudicating authority rejected a part of the refund against which appellant filed appeals and even though the ld. Chartered Accountant informed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the appeals, no details are available. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 took up revision of the orders of the adjudicating authority and issued show-cause notices and passed the im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntrary decision has been placed before me, on this ground also appellant has made out a prima facie case. 4. The next issue vehemently argued by the ld. DR was that fact that the services were rendered from the ground floor of the building but this was not at all a registered premise. Further this premises was de-bonded by the Customs and the date of de-bonding is not indicated and no evidence has been produced to show that services were rendered from the ground floor. In the absence of debonding of premises, it is for the assessee to show that the services were rendered from that premises and when not shown, benefit of refund of service tax cannot be allowed. Ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that it was not known on what date the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant and it is his plea that such Service tax collected have been paid. Since the service providers have issued invoice as required and showed the Service tax paid by them, the appellant is eligible for the benefit. On the other hand. ld. DR submitted that the agreement was only with Shri Sait and there is no evidence to show that Smt. Sait was owner of the building and whether she has paid the service tax is also not known. Prima-facie, I am not able to agree with the view taken by the ld. DR since according to Cenvat Credit Rules what is required to be seen is whether invoice has been issued by the service provider and all the relevant details are available therein. Further it is also necessary that the service receiver should have taken....