2016 (12) TMI 1523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) vide which the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Original by setting aside the Order-in-Original. 2.  Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacture of various types of spectacl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bmitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because the learned Commissioner (A) has not considered the evidence produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority which  the original authroity in her order at para 7(ii) makes a categorical finding that the claimant have established nexus between the services and the manufacturing activity. He further submitted that in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nking and Financial Service Sundaram Clayton Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (42) STR 741 2 Business Auxiliary Service Sundaram Clayton Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (42) STR 741 3 Repairs, Maintenance and Testing Service CCE vs. Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd.: 2012 (279) ELT 402 (T) 5.  On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6.  After considerin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X