9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn to the extent of ₹ 27,64,742/- which the appellant has stated that they have rectified the defect but the documents were not produced before the authorities to justify the claim - case remanded to the original authority with a direction to examine the refund claim de novo after examining and verifying the documents which may be produced by the appellant in support of their claim - appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax paid on input services amounting to ₹ 6,62,09,557/- tor the period July 2014 to September 2014 under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dt. 01 /07/2013. Pursuant to the refund application, Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice proposing to reject the refund on various grounds and after following due process, Assistant Commissioner disallowed the refund in part vide OIO dt. 30/11/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt debited in the ST3 return and rejected the refund amounting to ₹ 27,64,7421/- considering it to be short debit into the CENVAT account. The learned consultant further submitted that the ground on which the refund has been denied was not a ground in the show-cause notice and the order passed is contrary to the allegation made in the show-cause notice which is not sustainable in law. ln sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural infraction. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner(Appeals) in para 11 of the impugned order has observed that there is a short payment of amount payable and the refund claimed on the same wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
