TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act to file appeal on the ground that Range Superintendent proposed for rejection of less amount but the Assistant Commissioner has rejected higher amount. Claim was scrutinized by Range Superintendent, then show cause notice was issued, defence reply was submitted and the claim was sanctioned after considering all the facts. This plea in the departmental appeal is totally frivolous because nothing has been stated that why claim can not be sanctioned. In place of filing an appeal on such a ground, the Review Cell should have randomly verified the payments of service tax and ascertained that in respect of some invoices, the respondent obtained refund but did not pay the same. In absence of such an allegation, the appellate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period February 2008 to December 2008 while the claim pertains to period October 2008 to December 2008. 3. After considering the submissions of the Revenue as well as of the respondents, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and Revenue is in appeal against this order. 4. On going through the impugned order, I find that the Commissioner has dealt with every issue raised by the Revenue properly and I find myself in full agreement with the conclusions reached by the Commissioner and reasoning adopted by him for the conclusion reached. Therefore, instead of dictating my own order, I consider it appropriate that it would be worthwhile to reproduce the order of Commissioner (Appeals) with which I fully ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order Nos. are given in invoices and LRs and invoices Nos. are given on shipping bills. Thus, it can be easily correlated that the transportation of export goods was done and hence refund claim has been correctly sanctioned. 5.3 The other contention is that the Range Superintendent proposed for rejection of claim of Rs. 77,065/- while Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of Rs. 90,058/- and did not sent the copy of work sheet. I finds that this contention has been made without even reading the show cause notice and impugned O-in-O. In the show cause notice, it was alleged that the claim of Rs. 90,058/- [Rs. 12,775.25 for non-submission of proof of export plus Rs. 71,765.25 for non-submission of copies of E-payment challans plus Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not legal and proper because the Assistant Commissioner did not send the work sheet. Superintendent (Review) in place of making this ground in the appeal could have got the work sheet on fax or could have talked to Assistant Commissioner to send the same by personal messenger because the Divisional Office is less than 15 Km away from the HQs. Office. This plea has been made only for the sake of it without even reading the show cause notice and impugned order in original, as evident from the above discussion. 5.5 The other ground that the respondent submitted irrelevant work sheet pertaining to 11 different locations of the assessee. I find that the claim was scrutinized by Range Superintendent, then show cause notice was issued, defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
