9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST (LTU), MUMBAI [2012 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] referred - Held that: - As regards utilisation in authorised operations, the Tribunal had observed that the Committee which gives approval has a representative of the Revenue also as a Member and having approved being part of the Committee, subsequently Revenue cannot take a stand that input services specified and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and therefore both the appeals are taken together and a common order is passed. 2. Appellant is an SEZ unit and they filed refund claims under Notification No.9/2009-ST dt. 03/03/2009 as amended by Notification No.15/2009-ST dt. 20/05/2009. Both the refund claims have been made to claim the refund of service tax paid on input services received by them. The refund claims have been rejected on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices Ltd. Vs. CCE(LTU), Mumbai [2013(29) STR 393 (Tri. Mumbai)] in support of his submissions. 4. Learned AR fairly agrees that the issues are covered by the decision of the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the submissions. Both the issues had come up before the Tribunal in the case of TCS in Bombay and the Tribunal had taken the view that appellant is eligible for refund. As regards utilisat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
