2016 (9) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ices which had been used for their operation during the period April, 2013 to June, 2013. The adjudication authority after scrutinizing the refund claim, sanctioned refund of Rs. 1,02,678 and rejected a refund claim of Rs. 12,53,716/-. On an appeal filed before the first appellate authority, first appellate authority modified the refund order by accepting the contention of the appellant they are eligible for refund of further amount of Rs. 5,44,949. He passed the impugned order by holding it so and rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 7,66,804. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant draws my attention to the various documents and also to the impugned order before me. It is his submission that refund of the amount which i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rge Mechanism. 8. I find that the claim of the learned counsel that services rendered would fall under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" is already addressed by the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority and I find no reason to disagree with such findings of the first appellate authority. The said findings are as under. "11. Regarding the service tax of Rs. 7,66,804/- relating to import of service disallowed by the ld. respondent, I am in agreement with the appellant that the nature of service needs to be determined first. I proceed to do the same. I find that the appellant have submitted sample invoices and also copies of GAR-7 challan dated 24-4-2013 for Service Tax payment of Rs. 7,23,784/-, ....