2013 (4) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent: Shri Amresh Jain,   A.R. JUDGEMENT Per G. Raghuram: Heard Shri B. Lakshmi Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and the ld. D.R. for the respondent Revenue. This appeal is preferred against a common Order in Appeal dated 8.8.2012, confirming several Orders in Original dated 2.4.2012 whereby the adjudicating authority disallowed refund claims asserted by the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oods from the place of manufacture to the export terminal were paid by series of single invoices, which included freight charges for onward transportation for export as well as return of the empty containers to the factory premises. The adjudicating authority found and recorded that Appellate authority confirmed the primary authority's conclusion, that the component of the consolidated freight cha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ise, as the reasons recorded in the decisions referred are consistent with a true and fair interpretation of the Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 and Notification No.40/2009 dated 30.9.2009, respectively. On the aforesaid analysis, the appeals are allowed. The order of the Appellate Commissioner (Appeals) confirming respective orders of the adjudicating authority are quashed and appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X