2016 (7) TMI 1224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appearance: Shri O. P. Agarwal, CA & Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Amreesh Jain and Shri Ranjan Khanna, ARs for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): All three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in all of them is the same. 2. The appellants are exporter of a final product and are entitled to the benefit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lants have not produced proper invoices raised by the service provider and the debit notes produced by them are not prescribed documents. Accordingly, their refund claims were rejected by the original as well as appellate authority. 3. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri O. P. Agarwal, learned Chartered Accountant, Ms. Rinki Arora, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri Amrees .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r reported as [2015-TIOL-2241-CSTAT-DEL], it was observed that if the documents produced are debit notes and giving all the details and particulars as required under Rule 4A of the STR 1994, the refund cannot be denied on the technical ground that the documents are not invoices but debit notes. By following the said decision, the appeals of other assessees stand allowed by way of remand by Final O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X