TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue requires to be relooked by the adjudicating authority - Matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/40213-40214/2018 and ST/40216 to ST/40225/2018 - 42551-42562/2018 - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri S. Ramachandran, Cons. For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER 1.0 The appellant M/s. Ingegra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry is 100% EOU engaged in export of services in relation e-Publishing of books and related services for various publishers and corporate companies situated abroad. 1.1 Based on scrutiny of ER-2 returns, 12 show-cause notices were issued on various dates with proposals to recover ineligib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55,86,302 53,09,310 2,76,992 1.3 Appeals filed before Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 181-183/2017, dated 27.09.2017. Hence, the present appeals. 2.1 On behalf of the appellants, learned consultant Shri S. Ramachandran appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that credit has been disallowed to the tune of ₹ 1,28,473/- alleging that the appellants have not produced the documents. Out of this amount, he submitted that the demand to the tune of ₹ 2,766/- is not pressed by the appellants. For the balance amount of ₹ 1,25,707/-, he submitted that the invoices were produced by the appellants at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that appellants have not produced invoices. Learned consultant submitted that the appellants have already reversed this amount and the demand raised along with interest and penalties in this regard cannot sustain. 3. The learned Authorised Representative Shri R. Subramaniyan supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After perusal of records, it was found that the appellants have availed credit to the tune of ₹ 1,25,707/- on photocopies of invoices. 6. The authority below has disallowed the credit for the reason that the documents are not proper. It is borne out from the records that appellants had originally filed a refund claim, which was sanctioned by the refund sanctioning authorities. It c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
