2013 (2) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... artment against the Order-in-Appeal No. 133/2010 dated 30.7.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents are 100% E.O.U. and engaged in the manufacture and export of Precision Electro Mechanical Assemblies, parts of Medical Equipments, etc. They filed a refund claim for Rs. 5,48,489/- for the month of July 2008. The original authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rvices were used for manufacture of the goods and seeks setting aside the order of the authority below. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent reiterating the grounds in the cross objections support the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The appeal by the department is on the ground that there is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) which are based on the verification report of the jurisdictional range officer. The appeal by the department is rejected. 8. The cross objection which is merely in su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X