9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates for the assessee ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 21/12/2012 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Alloys liable to Central Excise duty. They were having facility for generation of electricity within their factory. They were also availing cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 76 on the appellant. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the appeal by the respondent. 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the revenue is a appeal. 3. The Ld. AR, elaborating the grounds of appeal, submitted that the respondent have received scientific or technical service in terms of agreement and the performa invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineering Company Ltd. and the said invoice was not given effect. No payment was made for any design, charges to a foreign company and this aspect has been asserted by them before the lower authorities also. It is for the Revenue to establish that they did make payment and respondent could not establish non-payment of the said amount. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the order. 6. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents. He instructed that the matter can be verified with RBI for any payment in foreign currency. I find no such verification was done. The impugned order is challenged only on the ground that the agreement talks about design and engineering and there was a performa invoice. I find that this assertion alone is not sufficient to confirm the tax liability on reverse charge basis. First of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
