9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the Appellant Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per P. Dinesha: The appellant is a holder of Central Excise Registration as well as Service Tax Registration and manufactures moulded rubber products and other rubber articles. They were paying service tax on Clearing and Forwarding Services (C&F services) provided by M/s. Project Management Inc., U.S.A. for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess of law, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 06.07.2011 confirmed the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 167/2012 dated 16.07.2012 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant while upholding the Order passed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay service tax and hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned Order. 4.2 Further, Ld. Advocate relied on the Order of this very Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Bnazrum Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Madurai in Final Order No. 40350/2018 dated 05.02.2018 wherein, this Bench after considering the judgements of various judicial fora, has held in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and received in India) Rules, 2006. Further, we note that on an identical set of facts this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bnazrum Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that such activity would not be exigible to service tax by virtue of Rule 3(ii) of the Rules. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below for the sake of convenience : "5. We find that the Ld. Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
