TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2013 and Revenue isin appeal against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos: PIII/RP/92-98/2013 dated 30/03/2013; PIII/RP/108/2013 dated 09/04/2013 & PIII/RP/129/2013 dated 03/05/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals III), Pune. 3. The issue in brief is that the assessee-appellant is engaged in providing taxable service and are also engaged in exporting information technology software service covered under Section 65(105)(zzzze) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant-assessee was filed various refund claims before the authorities. The said refund claims were processed by the lower authorities and part of the refund claim was allowed and part was rejected. Against such rejection of the refund claim, the assessee-appellant pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the Revenue as well as the assessee have preferred the appeals and the appellant-assessee has also filed cross-objections against the Revenues appeals. On perusal of such cross-objections, we find that they are only in support of the impugned orders. Accordingly, Cross-objections are disposed of. 7. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding refund claims for the period post 27/02/2010 when the legal provisions of Export of Service Rules, 2005 that need to be considered is amended by Notification 6/2010-ST dated 27/02/2010. Provisions of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005, wherein the conditions that has to be satisfie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, there cannot be any denial of refund claims filed by the appellant for the period after 27-2-2010. In view of this legal position, Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/RS/120/2012, dated 30-3-2012 (ii) PIII/RS/128/2012, dated 17-4-2012 (iii) PIII/RS.154/2012, dated 30-4-2012 & (iv) PIII/RS/181/2012, dated 29-5-2012 cannot sustain and the appellant will be eligible for the refund amounts covered by these orders which has been denied to them for the reason that the refund claims pertain to the period after 27-2-2010 and the condition of export as provided in Rule 3(2) has been satisfied. Similarly, the appellant would also be eligible for the refund of Rs. 10,19,568/- for the period March, 2010, which was denied to them vide Order-in-Appeal No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service provided outside India is received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange'. Now after omission of clause (a) completely even these words, namely, 'provided outside India' have been omitted from clause (b). Therefore, clause (b) reads 'payment for such service is received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange'. 4. The Tribunal has concluded in this case that the onsite services rendered by the appellants abroad would qualify for being termed as export of service. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on this point cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The reasoning in paragraph 5.4 of the impugned order is, therefore, in consonance with....