2018 (4) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9; and are engaged in the business of investment advisory services and has entered into an Investment Advisory Service Agreement with Brookfield Asset Management INC at Toronto, Canada, had filed a refund claim for refund of Rs. 2,36,786/- towards accumulated cenvat credit in respect of various input services used for providing exported output services during the period April 2012 to June 2012, in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012. On scrutiny of the claim, the Deputy Commissioner, Refund Division-II, Service Tax-I vide his order rejected the entire refund claim on the grounds viz the appellant has received all the export proceeds in month of July, which is not during the cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authority is liable to be quashed and in support of this, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Cummins Research & Techno India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2015(38) STR 1137 (Tri. Mum.)] ii. CCE&C, Aurangabad Vs. Sidheshwar SSK Ltd. [2011(274) ELT 141 (Tri. Mum.)] 5. He further submitted that on merit also, the claim filed by the appellant was in accordance with law. He further submitted that during April to June 2012, the appellant had provided services to Brookfield Asset Management INC and raised an invoice on 30/06/2012 for an amount of USD 5,01,590. The recipient of services is located outside India and the benefit of the service accrued outside India and therefore the services rendered are qualified as export of service in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aim is to be rejected on merits, he submitted that the appellants are not entitled to the refund because they have not received the proceeds in the same quarter in which they have filed the refund claim. 7. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that the original authority has passed the order without complying with the principles of natural justice and therefore, the order passed is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is bad in law. Secondly, I find that the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions which are required as per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for a taxable service to qualify as an export of service. Further I find that the Board vide its Circular No.1....