2021 (6) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of readymade garments. They also export readymade garments as merchant exporter. The appellant is a 100% silk export house recognized by the Government of India. 2. They have filed claim for refund of Rs. 3,11,809/- as unutilized CENVAT Credit. The Assistant Commissioner o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Order-in-Original wherein the Service Tax Registration No. is mentioned in respect of Canara Bank. They have also submitted copies of debit advices which were also placed before the authorities bellow. It is his submission that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the evidences filed before him and passed the appellate order. 6. Shri K. Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellate authority. 11. On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the registration details of the input service provider were available and therefore, the rejection of refund on the ground of non-availability of registration No. in the invoices is not maintainable. Consequently, refund amounting to Rs. 67,446/- covered by such input service invoices, are allowable. 12. In view of the forgoing, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X