2017 (12) TMI 720

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... B.G. Chidananda URS, CA For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG These five appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 12.9.2014 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund on the basis that in the FIRCs, the purpose of remittances is an advance receipt, which cannot be correlated to the exports. 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... various periods mentioned in the table given above. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to reject the refund claims on various grounds. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority rejected the refunds on the ground that the FIRCs contains an address different from that of claimant STPI and also the FIRCs records the remittances received as advance and there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant has filed the refund applications. He further submitted that the finding is contrary to the stand taken by the department in the show-cause notice. He further submitted that if the department holds that the claimant has not exported the service and they had to charge service tax on the service so rendered and had to pay service tax on the services so rendered, then there should be a de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hartered Accountant, who has certified that the remittances were received. He further submitted that it is not possible to establish one to one correlation of the invoices. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the correlation statement has not been furnished and the one to one correlation has not been proved or established. 7. ....