2014 (8) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted vide order of adjudication dated 18.6.2010 and other orders as mentioned in the table below:- Sr.No. Order-in-Original No. & Date Period involved Refund amount Amount sanctioned Amount rejected 1 ST/DIV-IV/46/2010-11 dated 18.6.2010 Oct. To Dec, 2008 1,89,241 00 1,89,241 2 ST/DIV-IV/49/2010-11 dated 18.6.2010 Jan to March, 09 2,25,528 00 2,25,528 3 ST/DIV-IV/48/2010-11 dated 18.6.2010 April to June, 09 2,42,086 00 2,42,086 4 ST/DIV-IV/47/2010-11 dated 18.6.2010 July to Sept.09 1,51,010 00 1,51,010     Total 8,07,865 00 8,07,865 2. The brief facts are that the respondent assessee M/s Monetization Software Pvt. Ltd. is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vertible foreign exchange, and both these conditions are satisfied. So far the difference in name of service receiver for export of service and name of remitter of foreign exchange is concerned, it is explained that the appellant have engaged payment handlers outside India, who chase the payment with the recipient of service and having collected the same, remitted the amount to the appellant after following the provisions under FEMA and accordingly, there is no ground for rejection of refund claim. So far the conclusive findings regarding the address in the input invoices is concerned, it is pointed out that the appellant previously had it corporate office at the given address at Link Way Estate, Malad, Mumbai which was subsequently changed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the payment for the bills raised for same period are bound to be settled and received later on. Accordingly, being satisfied the Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to allow the appeals of the respondent assessee with a direction to grant refund. 4. Being aggrieved the Revenue has filed the present appeal against which the respondent assessee is in cross-objection. 5. The ground no. (i), (ii) and (v) raised by Revenue in the appeals are to the effect that the value of taxable service exported does not tally with the figures shown in St-3 return. So far the above mentioned ground is concerned, the Revenue relies on the Order-in-Original but is unable to dispute the findings of the lower appellate authority and also the points urged in....