2020 (3) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d submitted that the issues on which the refund has been rejected in these appeals are as under : (i) Recipient of consideration is mentioned as Mumbai Unit in FIRC instead of Chennai Unit. (ii) The claim was held to be time barred by lower authority although no such finding by refund sanctioning authority. (iii) Non-submission of FIRCs (iv) Realization of amount through Cheque for which no FIRC was issued by bank. 3. With regard to the first issue as above, it is submitted by him that in the FIRC documents, the Mumbai unit was erroneously mentioned instead of Chennai unit. This was only an error committed by the bank and actually services were availed at Chennai unit. On the very same issue, for the subsequent periods refund s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rex cheque and not foreign remittances. The banks had not issued FIRC documents for this reason. Ld. consultant submitted that cheques were credited to the overseas account of the appellant and then periodically remitted to India in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore the authorities ought not to have rejected the refund claims on these counts. 7. Ld. A.R. Ms.Sridevi. T. appeared and argued for the department. With regard to the first issue, she submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had, for the subsequent periods, verified necessary documents and reached the conclusion that the address noted in the FIRC was an error by oversight on the bank and refund claims for the subsequent period were allowed. 8. With regard to the ground of....