9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as certain invoices were not relatable do not base on any enquiry result for which allegation of Revenue without discharging its burden of proof fails to stand. Further, stand of Revenue does not seem to be substantiated without any cogent or credible evidence brought to record. We may make it clear that we have not read the show cause notice hypertechnically but minutely. Taking note of method of approach of learned adjudicating authority to law, failing to examine relevant evidence, without causing enquiry wherever needed as well as improper evaluation of evidence and having suspicion on the appellant, his order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/85180, 85181 & 85182/14-Mum - A/90731-90733/17/STB - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (15) Service provided by Restaurant ₹ 9,334/- (16) Cargo handling service ₹ 4,52,028/- In spite of consumption of the above said services in the SEZ, Revenue has not allowed refund in terms of Notification No.17/2011-ST dated 1.3.2011 and in existence of certificate from Development Commissioner. He says that the certificate issued by Development Commissioner has undergone amendment in terms of communications existing at page No.52 and 56 of the appeal record. So also page 160 demonstrates to this effect. 2. Revenue simply denied the refund stating the reason that there were no nexus between the services and the operation carried out in the SEZ. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the utilization of such service. It is specifically brought to the notice of the Bench that learned Authority had very correctly evaluated the services in respect of goods transport by road appearing in para 5.8 of the show cause notice, management, maintenance or repair service appearing in para 5.11 and rent-a-cab service in para 5.12 of the show cause notice demonstrating that neither purpose of consumption of such services nor the utilization of such services in SEZ being evident from the invoices, appellant should not get the refund of the service tax paid in respect of such services. Therefore the Authority below has passed appropriate order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. 8. The items that were subject matter of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he flimsy plea of Revenue is that the invoices were in the name of head office and tours were not verifiable as well as certain invoices were not relatable do not base on any enquiry result for which allegation of Revenue without discharging its burden of proof fails to stand. Further, stand of Revenue does not seem to be substantiated without any cogent or credible evidence brought to record. We may make it clear that we have not read the show cause notice hypertechnically but read minutely. 10. In view of the above observations and taking note of method of approach of learned adjudicating authority to law, failing to examine relevant evidence, without causing enquiry wherever needed as well as improper evaluation of evidence and having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
