9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portation of the goods by rail from the ICD, to the gateway port and the customs clearance of the goods at the ICD as well as at the gateway port for export, there is no document showing that service tax in respect of these services had been paid. We, therefore, hold that there is no infirmity in the Commissioner's order-in-review - Decided against assessee. - ST/764-766/2010 & ST/194, 195 & 196 of 2012- CU( DB) - Final Order No.52396-52401/2014 - Dated:- 8-5-2014 - G Raghuram And Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Udit Jain, Adv . For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR PER : Rakesh Kumar 1. Since the appeals Nos.ST/194, 195 196 of 2012 are linked with the Appeals Nos.764, 765 and 766 of 2010, these six a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces were issued to them for their recovery along with interest, which were adjudicated by the Asstt.Commissioner by three separate orders by which the recovery of these amounts was confirmed along with interest. On appeals being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against these orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order-in-appeal dated 4.1.12 dismissed the appeals and upheld the Asstt . Commissioner's order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appeals No.ST/194, 195 and 196 of 2012 have been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri Udit Jain, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant had engaged M/s. Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. (KNPL) for composite job of customs clearance of the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ₹ 13,027/- but subsequently, the Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 had reviewed the Asstt . Commissioner's order and vide order-in-review no.27-29/ST/CHD-II/2010 dated 8.3.2010 reviewed the Asstt . Commissioner's order holding that refund claims have been wrongly sanctioned under notification no.41/07-ST as there is no evidence that the service provider had paid the service tax in respect of the service of transportation of the goods from ICD to the gateway port under Section 65(105)( zzzp ) had paid. 8. On going through the records of this case, we find that while the appellant had received services in question from M/s. KNPL which included transportation of the goods by rail from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
