2022 (7) TMI 1179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade under 26 shipping bills of export as claimed by the appellant assesse. Subsequently, the order-in-original was reviewed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata vide Review Order No.47/Review/Divisional/ST/Kol/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013. It was observed that since the claimant is not registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for refund in terms of provision 3 (h) of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. In view of the Review Order, the appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Department. The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the exporter should be registered with the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Indian Export Organizations (FIEO) for the financial year 2012-13. They have also referred to Para No.2.64.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, which says that "RCMC shall be deemed to be valid from 1st April of the licensing year in which it was issued and shall be valid for five years ending 31st March of the licensing year, unless otherwise specified." 3. The Ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, justified the impugned order and submitted that registration with the Export Promotion Council is a mandatory condition and hence, the impugned orer should be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. On perusal of records, I find that the De....