2013 (12) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 147/2009, dated 2-12-2009. 2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3.1 The Original authority, while considering the claim of the respondent for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, allowed refund of Rs. 13,53,722/- and rejected the balance of Rs. 5,45,174/-. 3.2 Against the order of rejection of refund claim to the tune of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... levant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced :- "9. Further, the other reasons for denying refund are - Document does not contain service provider details; in admissible document; documents not produced. The appellant has stated that they have submitted all the documents in support of the claim and that all details like service tax regn. no. of the service provider .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rejected, the Commissioner (Appeals) has merely given another opportunity to the respondents to produce the documents before the Original authority for fresh consideration. This has been given in the light of the submissions made before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the matter required factual verification by the Original authority, the course of action prescribed by him appears appropriate. Tho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X