9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant with reference to their refund claims - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/2784/2012-ST [DB] - ST/A/52461/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Gurjan Mishra, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Mishra, D.R. Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 08.06.2012 of Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-II. The appellants are engaged in providing various out-sourced, back-office services, in terms of agreement entered into with various clients based abroad. They have availed cenvat credit on various input services used in connection with providing their output services to foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming. It is further submitted that before rejection of the claims no show cause notice was issued. Only certain clarifications and documents were called for and rejection order was issued thereafter. It is the submission of the appellant that the claims filed by the appellants are rightly eligible for refund and the same should be sanctioned. 3. The ld. A.R. reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. He submitted that it is recorded in the impugned order that the appellant failed to submit copies of all agreements and also invoices in support of export of service and containing details of service. Even the correlation of receipt of foreign exchange could not be made. Hence, he submitted that the rejections were made correctly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. Counsel strongly contended that they have provided all the agreements and also supporting invoices and FIRC certificate in respect of claims. It is relevant to note that on the very same set of facts, the Revenue allowed the refund claims for the previous period. We find no justification for the lower authority for taking different stand for the subsequent period. 5. In view of above discussion and finding, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside the same. We direct the original authority to examine the issues afresh, especially referring to the documents submitted by the appellant with reference to their refund claims. The nature of services is not disputed. These services are exported out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
