2014 (9) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/4/31.01.2012 dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s Vasudha Agencies, are in the business of procuring the inputs/goods for the foreign based principal viz., Covington Holding, LLC, USA. For rendering these services, the appellants received commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants had satisfied all the above conditions. However, because of a doubt of the term 'used outside India', the appellants, on a conservative basis and being law abiding citizens, had paid service tax of Rs. 5,93,887/- on the commission received on the services rendered to the Foreign Principals. 2.1 The said service tax amount was paid by the Appellants from their own pocket under reverse cha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umbai rejected the refund application. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Order-in-Original was upheld on the ground of limitation. It has been observed that tax was deposited on 29.3.2008, whereas claim for refund was made beyond one year on 5.10.2008. 2.3 Being aggrieved, the Appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The learned C.A. appearing for the appellants submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (SC) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. KVR Construction- 2012 (26) STR 195 (Kar) 3.2 The appellants further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to record the reasons as to why the said payment of 'amount' by them should be treated as 'tax'. The appellants, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the refund be granted of the said 'amount' paid by them.....