9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ranjan Khanna, AR for the Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and has upheld the order-in-original, Revenue has further filed the present appeal. 2. The respondent are engaged in export of DOC manufactured by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved with the order passed by the adjudicating authority, Revenue filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that services provided by the service provider, cannot held to be falling under the category of testing and analysis services and as such, the refund of service tax paid cannot be granted to the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) considered the definition of technical t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recipients end. Accordingly, he rejected the Revenues appeal. 5. Hence the present appeal. 6. After hearing both the sides, we find that Revenue is assailing the orders of the authorities below on the ground that the activity and service provided by the service provider are not covered by the definition of technical testing and analysis services. However, they have accepted that the service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2009 (213) ELT 134 (Tri-Del)] as also another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Alloys Industries vs CCE, Raipur [2008 (227) ELT 617 (Tri-Del)] is appropriate. We find no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order of the authorities below. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in the open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
