2017 (3) TMI 1414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....avandar, C.A. for the Appellant Shri Nagaraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above three appeals are filed against the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the rejection of refund claim passed by original authority. The issue involved in all the appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. 01/07/2012 to 30/09/2012 44,517 3. 01/10/2012 to 31/12/2012 1,10,331 4. 01/01/2013 to 31/03/2013 1,02,450   Total 3,38,988 3. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the documents were not proper and also that the appellant had not taken registration. In appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the appellant has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id on input services used for export of services. That similar view has been taken in the case of CST Vs. Tavan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2016(43) STR 57 (Kar.)]. That the appellant was granted refund for the period prior to taking registration vide Order-in-original No.19/2014 dt. 27/06/2014 by the Mumbai Division of the Department. 5. The learned AR Shri Nagaraj Naik reiterated the findin....