2015 (10) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r unit, which is a 100% EOU set up in the Software Technology Park of India scheme (STPI) of the Government of India. The appellant claimed refund of input Service Tax under Notification No. 12/2005 on services which are used in providing the output service, which is exported. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of Rs. 1,47,539/- on the ground that the appellant had claimed rebate of Service Tax on bills which are prior to the date of declaration under Notification No. 12/2005 and also prior to the date of export, which is October, 2010. He held that the bills prior to the date of export have nothing to do with the period of export to which the refund claim pertains. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this finding stating th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. - 2010 (258) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2010 (20) S.T.R. 219 (Tribunal). 4. The learned AR reiterated the finding of the Commissioner and stated that the appellant has not proved that the input services were used in the exported services. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In this case, rebate has been sought under the provisions of Notification No. 12/2005 issued in terms of Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, framed under Notification No. 9/2005, dated 3-3-2005. I find that there is no dispute on the fact that the appellant had followed the procedure laid down in the notification regarding filing of declaration giving all requisite details such as description, value, am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the April-June quarter. However, no exports may be made in this quarter, so no refund is claimed. The input credit is thus carried over to the July-September quarter, when exports of Rs. 50 lakh and domestic clearances of Rs. 25 lakh are made." Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rests on unfounded allegation and is to be rejected. The appellants have been providing all the details of input service and the output service and a major portion of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 9,08,188/- was sanctioned based on same facts of use of input services for providing output service. The amount of Rs. 1,47,539/- was rejected only on the ground that the period of export is October 10, whereas the period of invoice relating to inpu....