2018 (4) TMI 1704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), For The Respondent : Request for Adjournment ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue and when the matter is being called the counsel for respondent/assessee is absent and has filed a time petition, which is rejected in view of the case is being adjourned on five occasions earlier. Further, I find that the respondent/assessee is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar and the remaining amount on the ground that the invoices do not conform with the provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-ST and further that the respondent/assessee failed to provide the export proceedings realization proof. 3. On appeal being filed by the respondent/assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), after going through sample invoices and the connected export documents like Air Way....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s) held that the Adjudicating Authority was wrong in denying the refund of Rs. 1,26,932/- to the respondent. Further, directed the respondent/assessee - "to produce the payment proof in respect of all the concerned invoices to the Adjudicating Authority". Accordingly, he was pleased to allow the appeal and modifying the impugned order with the observations as noticed hereinabove. 4. Thus, the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals) and accordingly, the said ground is dismissed. On the second ground as regards I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have only deciding the issue in principle by giving the directions to the respondent/assessee - "to produce the payment proof in respect of all the concerned invoices to the Adjudicating Authority" thus, directions having been given to the respondent/assessee to appe....