9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - It is observed that the appellant had not complied with mandatory conditions 2(i)(B) and 2(i)(F) of the notification no.17/2009-ST as well as other conditions mentioned against GTA Service and CHA service of the said notification. I also find that Business Auxiliary / Support services were not covered by any entry in the said notification for the purpose of refund. The entire admissibility of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A Service and filed a refund claim for ₹ 18,831/- in terms of notification no.17/2009-ST dt. 07.07.2009 on services used by them for export of goods for the quarter April 2010 to June 2010. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the conditions 2(i)(B), 2(i)(F) of notification no.17/2009-ST were not fulfilled by the claimant besides some services, for which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods. 4. On the other hand, Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue, argued that the lower authorities have correctly rejected appellant's refund claim, as the mandatory conditions 2(i)(B) and 2(i)(F) of the said notification were not fulfilled by the appellant. He argued that there were many discrepancies in the refund claim as pointed out in the show cause notice, to which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not covered by any entry in the said notification for the purpose of refund. The entire admissibility of refund claim is based on the procedural requirements and submission of reconciliation of documents under Notification No.17/2009-ST. As appellant has failed to fulfill the procedural requirement, therefore, refund was correctly denied. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is rejected. (Ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
