9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The particulars of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. ST/21099/2018 ST/21100/2018 Period of Dispute April 2015 to June 2015 July 2015 to September 2015 Refund claimed Rs. 4,87,302/- Rs. 5,37,298/- Order-in-Original No.& date No. 15/2017 dated 27.12.2017 No. 24/2017 dated 12.01.2018 Refund rejected Rs. 1,85,748/- Rs. 1,32,194/- Order-in-Appeal No. & date 341/2018 dated 04.04.2018 342/2018 dated 04.04.2018 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Micron Technology Inc. USA and is in the business of providing software development, research and dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the products owned by their principal in India fall in the definition of 'intermediary service'. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts of the case and the decisions of various Courts. He further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned order has failed to even read the Order-in-Original passed on the appellant's facts let alone make any reference to the Order-in-Original or the facts of the appellant or the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. He further submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Harman Steel Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kancheepuram and another [2006] 146 STC 292 (Mad.) b. Vummaneni Mineral Water Products (P) Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others [2005] 139 STC 355 (AP) c. S.B. International Limited Vs. Commr. of Customs, Calcutta - 2004 178 ELT 1123 Cal. d. Salem Textiles Limited Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 102 (Mad.) 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
