TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness Auxiliary Service". They are also providing maintenance and repair service. They are the sole selling agents of M/s.Murata Machinery Ltd., Japan. Since the appellants are exporting their services and consideration is received in foreign exchange, they have opted to avail refund in view of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dt. 18.6.2012 read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant has appointed sub-agents within the country for the purpose of canvassing business and procuring orders. The invoices raised by the sub-agents on the appellants, includes service tax. The service provided by sub-agents being eligible as input service for the appellants, they have availed cenvat credit. Since the appellants are having export of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view in subsequent para-19. Ld. Counsel further draws my attention to sample copies of tax invoices submitted by them on pages 76 to 78 of the appeal paper book wherein the description of service provided to the overseas company has been mentioned as "commission" for the service rendered. He also draws my attention to the Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) on pages 122 to 126 of the appeal paper book wherein the details of remittances is furnished. The purpose is mentioned as "Sales Commission". He drew my attention to page 90 of the paper book which is part of the ST-3 returns filed by appellant-assessee wherein the description of taxable service has been mentioned as "Business Auxiliary Service". In regard to the observation of the adjudi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim as required under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 and Notfn 27/2012-CE (NT) dt. 18.6.2012. He further submits that the claim is for Rs. 11,28,304/- and in their cenvat account they have made debit entry of Rs. 2,05,054/- only in the month of June 2013 and they have not produced any cenvat credit register evidencing debit of refund amount. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue relates to refund of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of CCR 2004. This rule is an export promotion oriented rule, which envisaged granting of refund of Cenvat credit lying unutilised with the manufacturer or provider of output service consequent upon the exports effected without payment of excise duties and without payment of service tax. This rule is governed by Notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been rejected on the ground that there was no agreement between the service providers and the appellants for providing the service. It is the ground of the Assistant commissioner that the copy of the agreement was given only after issue of Show cause notice. This ground for rejection is also not tenable as the genuineness of the documents has not been disputed. 10. It is also noticed that the claim is rejected for want of methodology for the quantification of the commission paid. It is observed that so long as the commission paid is not disputed, which can even be verified from the bank statements or certificates from the bank, the rejection of claim for want of quantification of the commission paid is not legally tenable. 11. It is also ....