9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellants are eligible for the exemption benefit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/41071/2014 - Final Order No. 40778/2014 - Dated:- 13-11-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; The learned AR for Revenue submits that the appeal was not signed by the proper person under the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. In this context, the learned Advocate placed a letter dated 24.10.2014 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise along with a copy of the Board Resolution. On perusal of the Board Resolution, we find that Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the appellant were in respect of exhibitions conducted abroad. Similarly, from para 3.3 of the adjudication order, it is seen that the Technical Inspections were done outside India. Therefore, as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, as amended. In the present case, there is no dispute of the facts and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellants are eligible for the exemption benefit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
