2015 (9) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dicate in terms of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that:- whether the entire proceedings from the inception were under the authority of the Superintendent and he concluded the adjudication, was an argument raised for the first time before the Tribunal that the Tribunal found it fit to reject it by assigning reasons inter alia of acquiescence. - We do not find that the Tribunal’s order in relation to this aspect raises any substantial question of law. - appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.
S.C. Dharmadhikari and S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. Shri Sameer G. Dalal i/by Ms. Naveena Kumari, for the Appellant. Shri Vijay Kantharia, Senior Counsel i/by Ms. Anamika Malhotra, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dalal, without taking into consideration the position that these charges were incurred on reimbursable basis. Meaning thereby the customers incurred certain charges and expenses which were initially borne by the appellant. The amounts were then refunded or reimbursed to the appellant and on them no service lax can be levied, assessed and/or collected. This argument which was specifically raised and relying upon an order or decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bax Global India Ltd. reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 412. However, the Tribunal despite the overwhelming evidence, in the form of bills and documents, ignored and brushed aside this argument. Thus, the concurrent findings are vitiated by clear perversity or an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority of the Superintendent and he concluded the adjudication, was an argument raised for the first time before the Tribunal that the Tribunal found it fit to reject it by assigning reasons inter alia of acquiescence. We do not find that the Tribunal's order in relation to this aspect raises any substantial question of law. 5. Even on merits the Tribunal found that the appellant/assessee failed to prove the nature of the expenses stated to be reimbursable. The argument orally made that those were statutory levies which the clients or customers were obliged to pay but the assessee paid on their behalf has been rejected. The Tribunal has relied upon the fact that in the garb of collecting statutory levy on 35 occasions, the collectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X