9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority to decide the eligibility of refund claim subject to CA certificate. 2. The Respondent has also filed cross objections in all the four appeals filed by the revenue. Since the issue in all the four appeals is identical therefore all the four appeals are being disposed of through this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts of appeal No.24/2011 are taken. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are: 3.1 M/s. Ingersoll Rand International India Ltd., Bangalore are registered under various categories of services viz., Consulting Engineer, Maintenance or Repair, Erection, Commissioning and Installation & Management Consultancy services and are engaged in export of Consulting Engineering and Business Auxiliary services. 3.2 They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. Though, the Respondents have filed cross objections in all the appeals, I proceed to decide the appeal of the revenue on the basis of material on record. 5. Learned AR for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the Board instruction 275/34/2006 CS 8a dated 18.02.2010. He also submitted that as per Board instructions and the amendment brought in the Finance Act, 2001 to the section 35A (3) which states that the Commissioner (A) shall, after making such further enquiry, as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. 6. Learned AR fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Motors (P) Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax; 2010 (20) STR 575 (CESTAT Ahmedabad). 6.4 Commissioner of Central Excise v National Insurance Co. Ltd; 2011 TIOL 850 (CESTAT Madras). 7. After considering the submission of the learned AR and perusal of the cross objections, I am of the considered view by considering various decisions relied upon by the Assessee which has been clearly held that the Commissioner (A) has the power of remand under section 985(4) of the Finance Act 94. 8. Therefore, by following the ratio of the said decisions cited supra, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) and therefore I uphold the impugned order by dismissing all the four appeals of the revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
