9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hendriks, Holand. So, there is no dispute of the fact that the appellant paid the charges for textile processing. Hence, they are eligible for exemption benefit under Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004, as amended - Demand set aside - decided in favor of assessee. - ST/S/416/2010 & ST/716/2010 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt. (AR) JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass and therefore after disposing the stay application, we proceed to take up the appeal. 2. The applicants are engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion of the order is reproduced below:- 2. There are two short issues involved in this appeal. They are:- (a) Whether there is service tax liability under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994, on the appellant as a recipient of service in respect of Business Exhibitions conducted abroad for which payments have been made by the appellants to parties located abroad. (b) Whether there is service tax liability on the appellant under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 as a recipient of service in respect of Technical Inspection and Certification Service in respect of testing done abroad and payments made by appellants to parties located abroad. 3. It is seen from para 2.1 of the adjudication order that the payments made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss auxiliary service insofar as if it is in relation to textile processing. The learned AR submits that they have not claimed this benefit before both the authorities below and it is a new point before the Tribunal and therefore it should not be considered at this stage. 5. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that on scrutiny of the records of the appellants, it was noticed that the appellant had paid the amount towards processing of textile materials for chemical wash charges to M/s. Testex, Swiss, Glancario and Reni Hendriks, Holand. So, there is no dispute of the fact that the appellant paid the charges for textile processing. Hence, they are eligible for exemption benefit under Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
