9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 30/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the Order-in-Original. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and holder of Central Excise registration for manufacture and export of goods and services relating to comprehensive catalyst and reactor maintenance, hot tapping and allied services. The appellant during the disputed period awarded the service contract at Sultanate Oman to M/s. Special Technical Services LLC, Sultanate Oman. The appellant, for executing the work, hired technical equipment in India from M/s. Plant Tech In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no export of goods. It is mere export of technical service and for rendering the service, equipment has been dispatched from India and foreign currency received by the recipient is for service and not for goods/machinery. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order by submitting that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has passed a reasoned order after considering the submissions of the assessee. He took me through the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals). Paras 8 and 9 are relevant and are reproduced below:- 8. I have gone through the Notification No.05/2006-(CE)(NT) dt. 14/03/2006 relevant to subject case and app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject value of equipment exported shall be included in the total turnover of the appellant in view of the clause (b) as mentioned in the definition of the above notification i.e. all excisable and non-excisable goods cleared, including the value of goods exported, hence this argument also not acceptable. 9. I find from the above discussion above, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority is legal, reasonable and needs no interference and the appellant is not eligible the part of the refund of unutilised cenvat credit claimed. Therefore, I come to unanimous conclusion that the refund claim rejected by the lower adjudicating authority is proper and correct. 5. After considering the submissions of parties and perusal of the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
