TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Appellate Authority are bound by the said instructions which also includes that the refund claims received without supporting documents should be rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL Nos. (ST/56219/2013 & ST/50324/2014)-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs 71170-71171 / 2018 - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Ms. Shreya Dahiya (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above two appeals are taken together for decision because they are involving the same issue. Appeal No. ST/56219/2013-CU[DB] is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 317/ST/APPL/NOIDA/2012 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were entitled for said refund. The said refund was rejected through Order-in-Original dated 22.02.2012. Appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.09.2012 did not interfere with the order of Original Authority. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal through Appeal No. ST/56219/2013. In similar manner on similar grounds with similar contentions appellant submitted another application dated 06.06.2012 to the same authority claiming refund of service tax of ₹ 1,98,015/-. The same was rejected through Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2013. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se invoices in the returns by M/s Dynacon Projects Private Limited and the service tax involved in those invoices being part of the service tax credited to the exchequer the learned counsel submitted that such information was not submitted before the Lower Authorities nor it was submitted alongwith application for refund, but given a chance they will be able to establish the same. 4. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of copy of application for refund dated 14.10.2011 available at page no. A-18 of the appeal paper book of Appeal No. ST/56219/2013 and similar copy of application dated 06.06.2012 available at page no. A-16 in appeal paper book of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
