9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Service Rs. 8,063/- (4) General Insurance Service Rs. 9,646/- (5) Service provided by Share transfer Agent Rs. 1,236/- (6) Courier Services Rs. 7,897/- (7) Customs House Agent Services Rs. 32,693/- (8) Goods Transport by Road (GTA) Rs. 1,272/- (9) Information & Software Services Rs. 4,017/- (10) Legal Consultancy Service Rs. 55,620/- (11) Management, Maintenance or Repair Service Rs. 9,937/- (12) Rent-a-Cab Services Rs. 1,613/- (13) Technical Inspection and CertIfication services Rs. 5,129/- (14) Telecommunication Services Rs. 8,224/- (15) Service provided by Restaurant Rs. 9,334/- (16) Cargo handling service Rs. 4,52,028/- In spite of consumptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because the invoices were in the name of head office of the appellant, that does not bar it to avail services in SEZ without any contrary finding in the adjudication. Therefore on all counts as stated above, appellants refund may be entertained without any objection by Revenue. 6. On the other hand, Revenue says that when there was no nexus between the input service and the utilization thereof in the SEZ, appellants claim was dismissed. It is further submitted that records were not produced before the Authority to satisfy the utilization of such service. It is specifically brought to the notice of the Bench that learned Authority had very correctly evaluated the services in respect of goods transport by road appearing in para 5.8 of the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.4, 5.5, 5.9, 5.13 and 5.16, disallowances were made on suspicion holding that it was beyond imagination that the service has been provided in the SEZ. We may make it clear that the suspicion, however, grave may be is not substitute of proof and Revenue did not discharge burden of proof bringing out a case to substantiate allegation of non-utilisation of service in question in the SEZ. Therefore on all these counts, there shall not be any disallowance of refund. 9. In respect of services other than above counts, the flimsy plea of Revenue is that the invoices were in the name of head office and tours were not verifiable as well as certain invoices were not relatable do not base on any enquiry result for which allegation of Revenue withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
