9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arun Kumar, Jt. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 09/2011 (T) ST, dated 10.03.2011. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellants are engaged in manufacture of various items falling under various chapters of Central Excise Tariff, 1985; during the audit conducted by the department based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to reconsider the issue afresh. In the remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised alongwith interest and imposed penalties; an appeal against such an order was also rejected by the first appellate authority by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that they are the manufacturers of excisable goods which are cleared in domestic market and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their own goods. It is his further submission that they could not substantiate the submission with any evidence as the shipping agents do not give any documents for the discount in the form of incentive, but are now producing a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant which indicates that the amounts received and recorded as brokerage are arising out of business dealings with the shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exporter for the business generated by such shipping agents. The appellants have recorded the receipt of this amount as brokerage in their books of accounts. 6. In our considered view, the orders of the lower authorities considering the amount received by the appellant as liable for tax on the category of 'Clearing & Forwarding Agent Services' is incorrect for a simple reason that appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
