9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds - the appellants are entitled to refund except refund of ₹ 2048/- for which the appellant could not produce sufficient documents - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20080/2015-SM, E/20081/2015-SM - Final Order No. 20461-20462/2017 - Dated:- 4-4-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr A.S. Monnappa, Adv - For the Appellant Mr. Parashiva Murthy, A.R. - For the Respondent ORDER Appellant has filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dated 30.09.2014 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant upholding the order-in-original. Since the issue in both the appeals is identical therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by the common order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same has been passed by ignoring the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that in Appeal No. E/ 20080/2015 the total amount of refund disallowed is ₹ 63,313/- and out of which refund amount of ₹ 48,734/- has been disallowed in respect of input service wherein invoices were addressed to the Head Office instead of the factory and the refund claim of ₹ 13,181/- was disallowed in respect of input services not bearing the service tax registration No or valid registration No. of service provider. Further in Appeal No E/20081/2015 total amount of refund disallowed is ₹ 1,30,679/- for the period April 2012 to June 2012 out of which refund claim of ₹ 1,18,897/- was disallowed in respect of input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE Jaipur [2010 (18) STR 490 (Tri-Del)] 2) Imagination Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Pune [2011 (23) STR 490 (Tri-Del)] Learned counsel further submitted that in respect of few invoices the service tax registration has been mentioned and the same has been produced by the appellant along with the appeal. As far as the refund of ₹ 4,048/which was disallowed on the ground that the invoices are not bearing the name and address of the appellant. The appellant could only produce the invoices worth ₹ 2,000/- and therefore out of ₹ 4,048/-refund of ₹ 2000/- is permissible and refund of ₹ 2048/- is rejected on account of not producing the documents. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
