9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing in the registration certificate - HELD THAT:- The fact is not in dispute that the input services were consumed by the appellant in its Airoli Unit, for use/utilization in the output services exported by it. Thus, mere mentioning of address of the Head Office instead of such unit in the invoices will bear the character of a technical lapse and the original authority is competent to condone such lapses in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules - matter remanded to the original authority for verification of the invoices and other particulars and thereafter to extend the refund benefit, if the services were used in the Airoli Unit for providing output service. Works Contract Service - HELD THAT:- There is no specific finding b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons were initially filed through on-line and subsequently filed in manual form along with requisite enclosures. Since the claims were lodged on-line, which was accepted in the departmental web-site, the claim applications cannot be considered as barred by limitation of time. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos. ST/87369, 87371, 87382, 87384, 87388 And 87407/2018 - A/88490-88495/2018 - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Hon ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Ms. Meetika Baghel, Advocate for appellant Shri S.B. Mane, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied to the appellant on the ground that there were no nexus between any input services and the output service exported by the appellant. Besides, the impugned order has also denied the refund benefit for the period from October, 2012 to December, 2012 on the ground that the refund applications were filed beyond the stipulated time frame prescribed under the statute. Further, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the appellant had not submitted proper documents to demonstrate that it was entitled for the benefit of refund. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.03.2018, the appellant has filed these appeals before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted a statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been denied on the ground that the invoices issued by the service provider had mentioned the address of the appellants Head Office instead of the address appearing in the registration certificate. The fact is not in dispute that the input services were consumed by the appellant in its Airoli Unit, for use/utilization in the output services exported by it. Thus, mere mentioning of address of the Head Office instead of such unit in the invoices will bear the character of a technical lapse and the original authority is competent to condone such lapses in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules. Accordingly, I am of the view that the mater should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the invoices and other particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and justified. 5.3 With regard to other services namely Legal Consultancy Services, Courier Agency services, Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services etc., the original authority had also denied the refund benefit on the ground that invoices were not submitted by the appellant. In this context, the appellant submits that all the relevant invoices are available with the appellant and the same are also placed in the appeal records. In view of the fact that the documentary verification has to be done at the original level, I remand the matter to the original authority for verification of the documentary evidences to be produced by the appellant. 5.4 With regards to denial of refund on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
