Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E Indore vs M/S. Dews Soya Ltd on 17 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Cross Application No. ST/Cross/11/2011-ST(DB)
Appeal No. ST/481/2010-ST(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/023/2010 dated 27.01.2010, by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Indore].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
C.C.E Indore .Applicants
Vs.
M/s. Dews Soya Ltd. .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the Applicants Letter to decide on merits from the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 17.10.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 54400/2016-ST(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue in support of their appeal, we find that the issue relates to refund of service tax in terms of notification number 41/2007 which allows the said refund of tax paid on various services utilized for export purposes.
2. The appellants refund claim was initially allowed by the original adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved with the same Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (A). The appellate authority examined the contract between the appellant and their foreign buyer and referred to various clauses which required the exported goods to be inspected and certified. He also examined the invoices and accordingly held that the ratio of the law laid down in the notification stands satisfied. Accordingly he rejected the Revenues appeal.
3. Being aggrieved with the said orders, Revenue further filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
4. On going through the memo of appeal and the grounds taken by the Revenue, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of the lower authorities. The lower authorities have examined all the documents and have clearly arrived at a finding that the technical testing and analysis was done in terms of the contract.
5. Accordingly, we find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order. Revenues appeal is rejected.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court]
(Ashok K. Arya) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
ST/481/2010-ST(DB)