9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the impugned order dt. 03/02/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has disallowed the refund of Rs. 1,63,765/- and Rs. 103/- and Rs. 261/- and allowed the refund of Rs. 4,22,559/- and Rs. 3,65,085/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered with Central Excise for manufacture of PP woven fabrics / PP woven sacks and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the finished goods which are exported. Aggrieved by the Order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) for refund of charges on documentation fee and rent and did not press for other two services i.e. freight charges and travelling charges as the amount is very small and the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the refund on documentation but denied the refund of rent by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arcel of the entire manufacturing activity at Doddaballapur and all the operations were carried out as part of the final product. The Head Office and the Branch Office had support to the main activity of the manufacturing and thus have clear nexus to the manufacturing activity of the final product of the appellant. the rent paid in respect of sister concern comes within the purview of the Head Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants are manufacturing the PP bags in the shed at Tumkur which has been taken on monthly rent for eventual export. I also find that the Tumkur factory was registered under Central Excise but was doing only stitching, printing and packing for appellant's unit at Doddaballapur. Therefore the activity undertaken by the appellant at Tumkur is in relation to the final product manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
