2008 (11) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r (J) Shri Amit Bansal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Saini, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the Order of the Commissioner No. 16/RK/2006, dated 31-3-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The appellant is a multi-national company with one their offices in Dubai; they did not have an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by M/s. G.E. Power Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the said services was addressed to the Dubai office of the appellant and that payments were also made from Dubai. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that view taken by the Department would imply that they have rendered off-shore services and they may not be required to pay any service tax at all during the relevant period. He submits that the view of the De .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated in India and used for rendering further services in India. The payment of service tax totally (amounting to Rs. 46,72,287/-) for the output service is not being disputed. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner in denying the Cenvat credit is not valid. Under these circumstances, the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 26,98,981/- on the input-services used in connection with the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X