Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Heard both the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Act and the various decisions rendered by the Tribunal. He further submitted that there are independent provisions to assess as to whether the assessee has complied with the Export of Service Rules, 2005 or not but such assessment cannot be undertaken when the appellant has filed the refund applications. He further submitted that the finding is contrary to the stand taken by the department in the show-cause notice. He further submitted that if the department holds that the claimant has not exported the service and they had to charge service tax on the service so rendered and had to pay service tax on the services so rendered, then there should be a demand under the Act for such tax which is due to be paid, but the findings recorded by both the authorities is not with regard to the fact that appellant have not rendered the services. He further submitted that no effort was made by the department to ascertain from the STPI or the RBI independently as to whether the SOFTEX Forms are retired by them or not considering the remittances as towards such exports or not. The RBI having accepted the receipt of remittance from the company, there cannot be a finding by the department that the remittances were not received when the claimant has declared that the remittances are received and accounted in their books as having received such remittances. He also submitted that both the authorities have not accepted the experts evidence in the form of Chartered Accountant, who has certified that the remittances were received. He further submitted that it is not possible to establish one to one correlation of the invoices.