Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Regarding the submissions like non-production of original FIRCs, non-mentioning of output service in the invoices and discrepancies in the figures etc., we are in agreement with the 20 ST/486/2011 submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents that procedural lapses, if any, should not come in the way to extend the substantial benefit available to the respondents.

17. In view of the above, we find that Revenue has clearly erred in issuing the show cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act.

Therefore, in view of the legal position and in view of the case laws cited above, the impugned show cause notices cannot be sustained.

We also find that the other contentions raised in the appeal are not acceptable. We find that the nexus between the input and output services cannot be decided during the course of grant or rejection of refund, for which statutory provisions otherwise exist. We also find 21 ST/486/2011 that the Notification No.05/2006 does not specify that original copies of FIRCs need to be submitted and therefore, the assessee‟s contention are acceptable. In view of the discussion, we find that the impugned order is sustainable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.