9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted during such quarter, the benefit of refund in terms of Rule 5 cannot be denied on mere non-reflection of the credit particulars in the ST-3 Returns for such relevant period. The appellant had not produced any records to show that the credit particulars were really reflected in the Books of Accounts and were relatable to the services exported by the appellant during the period April to June 2011 - the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the accounting records maintained by the appellant, to satisfy himself that the credit was availed during the relevant period and services were utilized for providing the exported output service during such period. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of March 2012, were in fact relatable to the period prior to June 2011. However, he submits that due to inadvertent, instead of showing the credit particulars in the relevant period, the same was reflected in the Returns filed subsequently. Learned Advocate also submits that the appellant had maintained adequate records to demonstrate that the credit particulars were relatable to the export of service during the period April to June 2011. Thus, he contended that for mere procedure lapses of non-reflecting the credit particulars for the period from April to June 2011, substantive right for the refund claim cannot be whittled down. 3. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the services exported by the appellant during the period April to June 2011. Thus, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the accounting records maintained by the appellant, to satisfy himself that the credit was availed during the relevant period and services were utilized for providing the exported output service during such period. The original authority while adjudicating the matter afresh, should not insist the appellant for establishing the nexus between the input services and the output service, provided by it inasmuch as, the appellant is a 100% EOU and no services were provided to the domestic clients. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had not used the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
