9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1,01,199/-. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant are manufacturer and exporter of Calcine Bauxite and they are registered with the Central Excise as well as the Service Tax department. They claimed input stage refund of various services provided for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June, 2012. They have filed a refund application for the period from January-2017 to March-2017 for refund of an amount of Rs. 16,58,802/-. On verification of the documents, the Adjudicating Authority observed that in relation to four invoices, the services were provided at factory site and the same services had not been used beyond the factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,199.00 is not sustainable and requires to be quashed and set aside. 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the invoices were provided to the adjudicating authority, and he has observed in para 5 of the Order-In-Original that during the course of verification of all invoices covered under this category, it is observed that M/s Titan Enterprise has issued invoices in favor of the exporter of the said services. Hence, as per the Order-In-Original, there was no dispute pertaining to the non-production of invoice. The claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority only on the ground that, the services were provided at the factory site and hence were not provided beyond the factory. On this ground alone, the refund was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and Learned Authorised Representative for the department and perused the record. After hearing both the parties, I am of the view that, the Learned Commissioner has erred in passing the impugned order and the impugned order is not sustainable. I agree with the Learned Counsel for the appellant that in the Order-In-Original, it has not been mentioned by the Adjudicating Authority that the applicant / appellant has not produced the copy of the invoice. If at all, the appellant has not produced the copy of the invoice before the Adjudicating Authority; then this fact must have been mentioned in the Order-In-Original. Further, I also agree with the Learned Counsel for the appellant that no refund application can be processed, if copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
