9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification No.17/2009-ST were not fulfilled - Held that:- In the light of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, the claim by the appellant reiterated before this Tribunal, that the invoices submitted and that the refund claim contained details of the bills of lading which are essential documents of proof of export setting out the export invoices and container n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 14.2.2012 allowed refund to the extent of ₹ 7,832/- while rejecting refund claim to the extent of ₹ 2,04,092/-. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh II vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant herein, concurring with the primary authority. 2. The appellant is a registrant for service tax for rendition of transport o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the refund claim submitted and the documents furnished by the appellant asserted payment of service tax in the shape of input/debit notes to certain entities which were considered to be neither the service providers nor were the documents furnished valid documents for claiming the benefits of Notification No.l7/2009-ST. The primary authority therefore rejected refund claim to the extent of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No.17/2009-ST were not fulfilled. 4. In the light of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, the claim by the appellant reiterated before this Tribunal, that the invoices submitted and that the refund claim contained details of the bills of lading which are essential documents of proof of export setting out the export invoices and container numbers and that photocop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
