9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Food Public Distribution (Govt. of India) vide Notification F.No.1(10)2015-SP-1 dated 18.09.2015, has stated that the quotas shall be tradable among sugar factories on mutually agreeable terms and condition and further states of a bi-partite/tri-partite agreement between/amongst quota holder sugar factory (which in this case is the appellant), Merchant Exporter (which in this case is ISEC) and the source sugar factory, i.e. from where the sugar had been sourced for export. Thus, the notification provided for sourcing of sugar from other sugar factories and therefore, such procurement was done to fulfil the export obligation. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/70018/2019-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO.70772/2019 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e export of sugar. The sugar was procured from the other factory to minimize the transportation cost. For providing/facilitating export of sugar, ISEC charged certain amounts. The particulars mentioned in invoice is as under Contract for fulfillment of obligation towards minimum indicative export quota including recovery of loss on export of sugar of Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. vide notification number 10/2015 dt.18.09.2015 so that Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. achieves its final liquidity required for the manufacture of its final products and procurement of the input as per agreement dt.11.12.2015 between Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. and ISEC. ISEC charged Service tax on its service charges. Respondents availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er find that the adjudicating authority has denied the re-credit by stating that ISEC had provided the services to the appellant to fulfill his export obligation and not for procurement of inputs, i.e., cane. The appellant, in this regard, has submitted that the services of ISEC had been procured for sourcing sugar from other sugar factories to facilitate export and the sugar so procured was an input for the purpose of export. In this regard, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant was required to export minimum of 80% of the allotted quota for being eligible to receive the productionsubsidy and to fulfil the said export obligation, he took the services of ISEC. Thus, the services of ISEC were utilized for fulfillment of export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
