2015 (9) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Devender Singh, AR ORDER Per: G Raghuram: The appeal is preferred against a concurrent rejection of a claim for refund presented on the basis of Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh vide the order dated 14.2.2012 allowed refund to the extent of Rs. 7,832/- while rejecting refund claim to the extent of Rs. 2,04,092/-. The ld. Commissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (a) the number and date of shipping bill (b) the description of exported goods and (c) the number and date of the inputs used by the exporter regarding the exported goods apart from other details specified in the Notification. Scrutiny of the refund claim submitted and the documents furnished by the appellant asserted payment of service tax in the shape of input/debit notes to certain entities wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellate authority further concluded that the appellant failed to submit any proof to establish any nexus between the inputs and the fact of the goods exported and that essential conditions for availment of refund under Notification No.17/2009-ST were not fulfilled. 4. In the light of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, the claim by the appellant reiterated before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X