9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/721/2010 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2011 - Mr.M.VEERAIYAN, JJ. Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellants Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR For the Respondent This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 146/2010 dt. 26.8.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Original authority vide order dt. 13.1.2010 sanctioned refund of service tax of Rs.1,54,797/- in respect of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents services: i) Shipping Bill-wise taxable value on which service tax paid was not available ii) Neither in the OIO nor in the Range Officer s verification report, the taxable value of each of the Shipping Bills was discussed / verified with the ST3 filed. iii) In respect of SB No.6324557 dt. 09.02.2009, the commission amount to be remitted abroad as per form-2 is 281 EURO whereas in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentary evidence, the order passed by the lower authority is not correct as per law. Therefore the respondents are not eligible for the refund of Rs.1,50,855/- towards Foreign Commission agency services. The other arguments put forth by the respondents do not come to their help, as they have no relevance to this case. In the result, the order of the lower authority is modified and the refund of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions from both sides and perused the records. The burden to prove eligibility of the refund claim is on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded discrepancies as narrated above and held that the appellants have not produced the relevant documents to reconcile the discrepancies. Submissions have been made that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in the light of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
