2017 (2) TMI 1076

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent ORDER Per M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. YDB/22/LTU/MUM/2012 dated 29.03.2012. 2. None appeared for the appellant despite notice. Since the matter is of 2012 we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation. 3. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. 4. The facts of the case in brief ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice Tax, Ahmedabad v. B.A. Research India Ltd., reported in 2010 (18) STR 439 (Tri. Ahmd.), filed a refund claim for Rs. 62,97,547/- and Rs. 11,71,637/- being the service tax and interest paid on the aforementioned services. 4.1 Aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim appellant challenged the order-in-original before the first appellate authority who after following due process of law reje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the date of CESTAT order; that appellant had never sought the refund of the tax paid claiming the benefit of notification No.11/2007-ST. 5.1 We have considered the grounds of appeal and perused the records as also the submission of learned Departmental Representative. 5.2 As regards the claim of appellant that they had, in their application, never claimed the exemption notification No.11/20....