9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original by rejecting the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of exporting service classifiable under Information Technology Software service with effect from 2nd Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot correlated with export invoices, as such, services exported are not in accordance with the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 11.9.2014 rejected the appellants claim for want of documentary evidences and also that the appellant failed to prove the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the refund Notification and the objective of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 by rejecting the refund for want of documentary evidence which were already submitted at the time of filing the claim. He further submitted that the appellants have received the FIRCs on running account basis and have submitted the self-certified statements showing correlation of FIRCs with export invoices. But both the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled all the documents along with refund claim application but the same has not been considered by both the authorities and the refund has been rejected on flimsy grounds. In view of this, I am of the view that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to consider the documents filed by the appellant in support of their claim as per the Notification No.5/2006 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
