2019 (1) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a service provider, engaged in proving the taxable services viz. Information Technology Services and Consulting Engineer Service. During the disputed period, the appellant had exported such taxable services. The appellant was not in a position to utilize the input service for payment of service tax on the output se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....benefit of refund of Rs. 8.92 crores on the basis of ratio of the input services used for providing the exported output service. Feeling aggrieved with the adjudication order dated 31.10.2017, so far as it denied the refund benefit of Rs. 12,81,357/-, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of vide order dated 25.01....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was considered by the original authority. Thus, he submits that since the appellant had never agitated the issue regarding refund of Rs. 15,68,635/- before the Commissioner (Appeals), such findings recorded in the impugned order is beyond the scope of the adjudication order. Hence, the learned Advocate submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 3. On the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r occasion on the part of appellant to agitate such matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). In fact, the appellant had never raised this point at the time of filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, it transpires that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the original records in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant should not be eligible for refund....