2018 (2) TMI 1123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Advocate for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: US/221/RGD/2011 dated 29/08/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai  II. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.  3. On perusal of the records it transpires that the respondent herein, on being issued a show cause notice for the demand of service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ically recorded the same at internal page No. 2 of the order, stating that confirmed demand is only Rs. 5.41 lakhs and the said demand was also dropped by him on the ground that this tax liability is on the bills which were for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the respondent for which he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lafreight Lift (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Cent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X