2014 (6) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/95/NGP/2010 dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. The appellant Revenue has been heard represented by Shri D.D. Joshi, Superintendent (AR) and written submissions filed by the appellant has been considered. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent manufactured spun yarn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the claim, an amount of Rs. 37,400.35 was sanctioned out of total claim of Rs. 66,255/-. The balance claim was not found admissible as expenses under the sub-heading Consultancy charges, Shut out cost, Documentation charges, Port Services, as the said services are not covered under the definition of services provided for export of the said goods falling under the category of Sr. No. 2 of Notifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of removal to Inland Container Deport (ICD). Therefore, in the light of the Board's circular dated 21.12.2009, the claim of refund was found to be admissible. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief. 5. The learned Supdt. (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings in the Order-in-Original. 6. None appeared on behalf o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X