2014 (6) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provide the services of testing, commissioning and after-sale warranty service on behalf of their foreign clients for which they get remuneration in convertible foreign exchange. In this regard, they had agreement with M/s. Secheron SA and M/s Gimota AG. There is no dispute that the service provided by them are Business Auxiliary Service taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant discharged service tax liability for these services provided to their foreign clients and treating these services as export of their services, they filed rebate claim ofRs.42,43,288/- for the period from 1.4.2010 to 30.11.2010 in terms of notification no.11/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005 issued under Rule 5 of the E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,099/- before the Asstt. Commissioner for the period from 01.04.2010 to 30.11.2010 under Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. This rebate claim was filed on 28.01.2011 in form ASRA-I and the same was also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the same ground vide order-in-original dated 3.6.2011. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant filed appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order-in-appeal dated 24.1.2012 dismissed the appeals, against which the appeal no.ST/480/2012 has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides 3. Shri A.K. Batra, CA & Shri Agrish Bhasin, Advocate, ld. Counsels for the appellants, pleaded that the service of procuring supply orders for their foreign clients - M/s. Secheron SA, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Service Rules, 2005 and that the Commissioners finding that the service provided by them are not export of service are not correct. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Govind Dixit, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that copies of the agreement of the appellants with their foreign clients had not been produced before the original adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. In both the cases, the rebate claims under notification no.11/2005-ST issued under Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rule, 2005 have been rejected, In both the cases, though ....