9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Judicial) Per: Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the appellant against the rejection of their refund claim. 2. The appellant is the manufacturer of iron and steel products. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.2,72,727/- claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended. The Notification No. 41/2007-ST exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the appellant has claimed the refund for the services of cargo handling services and Clearing and Forwarding services which cannot be allowed as per schedule to Notification No. 41/2007-ST. Hence, the impugned order is to be upheld. 6. On careful examination of the appeal memo and the impugned orders, I find that the refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Notification. In the impugned order, it has been further observed that during the personal hearing, the appellant sought time to present evidences of tax being deposited with the exchequer by the service provider. Instead of providing the said evidence, the appellant produced copy of Circular No. 106/09/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008 with regard to filing of claim for refund of service tax paid un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired verification cannot be carried by the department on the basis of incomplete invoices.' 8. In the impugned order the refund claim was rejected for non-production of the evidence asked by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the course of personal hearing. In that circumstance it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to remand back the matter to the original adjudicating authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
