2013 (3) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....od from April, 2011 to June, 2011 has been rejected. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the impugned order dated 12th September, 2012 even after recording the submission of the petitioner that various similar refund claims filed by the petitioner for the period from June, 2009 to March, 2010 have been allowed by the A.O. and even the Commissioner (Appeals) has held to the effect that the petitioner is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit and entitled to claim refund of tax paid on the services enlisted therein, the A.O. has failed to record any reasons as to why he differs with the aforesaid decision of the A.O./Commissioner (A) and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. On behalf of the rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the earlier decisions of the A.O. and the Commissioner (A). According to the A.O., in spite of repeated adjournments, the petitioner has failed to furnish the additional information called for by the A.O. Assuming that the petitioner has failed to furnish additional information, it was obligatory on the part of the A.O. to record a finding as to why the documents furnished by the petitioner are not sufficient to allow the claim of the petitioner and why additional documents are necessary, especially when on the basis of similar documents furnished by the petitioner in the past, the claims have been allowed by the A.O. as also the Commissioner (A). 7. Apart from the above, in view of discrepancy in the amount certified by the C.A. and t....