9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim that no personal hearing was granted. However, there is substance in the appellants assertion that had the Commissioner (Appeals) asked them the reason for claiming refund of service tax on services relating to MV XN DA they would have been able to satisfy him about the sustainability of their claim. In these circumstances, we deem it fit that the appellants should get another opportunity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Notification No. 17/2007-ST in respect of service tax paid on services relating to export of iron orefine. The original adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim of ₹ 12,22,740/- and rejected the balance refund claim of ₹ 8,54,771/-. Out of the rejected amount of ₹ 8,54,771/-, amount of ₹ 8,38,074/- was rejected on the ground that this amount pertained to vesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of MV XN DA. The appellants have further contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) never asked them to produce any proof to show that the same goods which were first loaded on ship MV XN DA were eventually exported on ship MVKS Pioneer. The appellants added that had the Commissioner (Appeals) given them an opportunity to produce the evidence, they would have been able to satisfy him regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices relating to MV XN DA they would have been able to satisfy him about the sustainability of their claim. In these circumstances, we deem it fit that the appellants should get another opportunity to present their claim before Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal to the extent it upheld the rejection of refund of ₹ 8,38,074/- and remand the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
