2018 (9) TMI 1378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Nishant Mishra (Adv) for the appellant and Shri Mohd. Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for the Revenue, we note that the appellant, who are engaged in export of I.T. Services, claimed refunds of credit of service tax paid on various input services utilized for such exports .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt services but rejected the same in respect of catering services and the invoices not being completed. 5. After going through the impugned orders we note that the dispute revolves around the cenvatability of the catering services which have been held to be cenvatable by the larger bench's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V V/s GTC Industries LTD. reported at 2008 (1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s further submits that a small amount of Rs. 6350 has been denied on the ground that the name of the assessee has been wrongly shown in the invoices issued by the services provider instead of showing the correct name of the appellant. Learned Advocates submits that the amount being on the lower sides, he is not contesting the same. Further refund of Rs. 2,433 denied by the Authorities below is als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X