Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

====================================================== M/s HSBC Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Respondent Appearance:

Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for Appellant Shri B.K. Iyer, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 08.08.2014 Date of Decision: 08.08.2014 ORDER NO.
Per: Shri Anil Choudhary These 7 appeals filed by M/s HSBC Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. have been preferred against a common Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/RS/222-228/2011 dated 16.8.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III.
2. The appellant is an exporter (EOU) providing services of Management, Maintenance or Repair service, Technical Testing services, Information Technology Software Services etc. The appellant, a registered assessee had filed certain periodical refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 which was partially allowed and partially rejected. The details of which are as under: -
Sr. no Appeal No. OIA Number Period Total Refund Applied for (Rs.) Refund Amount Granted (Rs.) Amount of Refund rejected (Rs.) ST/632/11-MUM PIII/RS/222-238 dated 16.08.2011 August 2009 84,30,557/- 83,55,119/- 42,779 ST/633/11-MUM Do October 2009 96,83,372/- 96,39,566/- 5006/-