9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER There are four appeals directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. SB/85/Th-I/2010/1347, dated 12-7-2010, No. SB/93/Th-1/2010/1441, dated 20-7-2010, No. SB/90/Th-I/2010/1433, dated 15-7-2010 and No. SB/86/Th-I/2010/1352, dated 12-7-2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. As the issue involved is in these appeals are common, I take u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as regards the GTA service the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in assessee's favour in the case of Vippy Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 238 (Tri.-Del.) and C.C.E. & C. & S.T., Visakhapatnam v. R.A.K. Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 609 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter. If therefore, follows that it is the exporter who is entitled for the refund and not the service provider who have rendered the services to the exporter. Therefore, the ground taken in the show cause notice is absurd and irrational and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
