Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. Indore vs M/S. Dewas Soya Ltd on 11 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Cross Application No. ST/CROSS/12/2011
Appeal No. ST/400/2010-CU(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/004/2010 dated 08.01.2010 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Indore].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri V.Padmanabhan, 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. Dewas Soya Ltd. .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri K. Poddar, DR for the Applicants None for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 11.08.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 53132/2016-CU(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue and going through the impugned orders, as the respondent has made a prayer to decide the case on merits, we find that the issue relates to the assessees refund claim of service tax paid on specified services used for export of the final product, in terms of notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007.
2. The original adjudicating authority allowed the refund of service tax paid on technical testing and analysis services by holding that the same are specified services in terms of the notification. Being aggrieved with the said order of the original adjudicating authority vide which refund of Rs. 3,50,171/- was sanctioned to the respondent, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (A).
3. Commissioner (A) by observing that testing and analysis are one of the specified services in the notification, rejected the Revenues appeal.
Hence further appeal by the Revenue.
4. After having gone through the said order of the Commissioner (A) we find that the issue stands discussed in detail by the Appellate Authority. It is not the Revenues case that technical testing and analysis is not one of the specified services in the notification in question. The only ground raised in the appeal is that Commissioner (A) has not discussed various grounds raised before him by the Revenue, which claim we find to be not substantiated.
5. Accordingly we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (A). The Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court]
(V.Padmanabhan) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
ST/400/2010-CU(DB)