w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Commr. of C. Ex., Ludhiana V/S Vardhman Spinning & General Mills

    Final Order No. A/60471/2017-SM(BR) in Appeal No. ST/850/2011-EX(SM)

    Decided On, 10 March 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Satyapal, AR And For Respondents: Abhinav Kansal, Advocate

Judgment Text

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim on commission agent service under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T, dated 6-10-2007 for the service availed by them for export of the goods. The brief facts of the case are that initially the respondent filed a refund claim on account of service availed on commission agent service for export of the goods for the period 3-6-2009 to 29-12-2009. The adjudicating authority sanctioned refund claim part of the amount for which the respondent has produced the evidence for payment of service tax on commission agent service and rejected the refund claim for the amount of which they could not have produced the evidence of service tax. Later on the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim of the balance amount of refund claim on production of payment of proof of service tax by the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me.

2. The contention of the learned AR is that the respondent has not paid service tax being service recipient from the service provider before filing refund claim, therefore, they are not entitled for refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T, dated 6-10-2007.

3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.

4. Considering the fact that it is not disputed that the respondent has paid service tax on the service on foreign commission agent provided to them, in that circumstance, the refund claim of service tax paid to the foreign commission agent for export

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of the goods under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. In these terms, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.