9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enial of rebate of Service Tax paid on services used in the export of salt and for this, the appellants claim rebate in terms of paragraph 3 of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. The Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the contentions inter alia on the grounds that the appellants had not fulfilled the conditions of the above Notification. The appellant thereafter preferred first appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the First Appellate Authority vide impugned Orders-in-Appeal dated 31.08.2019 partially confirmed the denial and partially remanded the issue for re-adjudication. Against the above orders of the First Appellate Authority, the appellants have preferred the present appeals before this forum. 3. Heard Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : (a) M/s. Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belapur [2011 (272) E.L.T. 104 (Tri. - Mum.)]; (b) M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhopal [2017 (4) T.M.I. 700 - CESTAT, New Delhi]; (c) M/s. Timblo Drydocks P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. & C.Ex., Goa [2019 (10) T.M.I. 328 - CESTAT, Mumbai]; (d) M/s. Repro India Ltd. v. UOI [2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.)]; (e) C.S.T., Chennai v. M/s. Sutherland Global Service Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) T.M.I. 771 - CESTAT, Chennai]; (f) M/s. Formica India Division v. Collector of C.Ex. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.)]; (g) Commr. of C.Ex., Coimbatore v. CEGAT, Chennai [2008 (227) E.L.T. 361 (Mad.)]; (h) C.C.E., Salem v. M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. [2009 (239) E.L.T. 398 (Mad.)]; (i) M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to participate in adjudication proceedings, it becomes clear that place of services has not been placed on record. The appellants have failed in discharging their responsibilities, at least bringing actual facts on record, which is their duty. The Adjudicating Authority was left with no choice other than passing the order, based on materials on record. Appellants have invited such an order which cannot be questioned by them, urging different facts and grounds as canvased by the Learned Advocate before this forum. The appellants have, in any case, no documentary evidences to rebut the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. In view of this, and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Dilip Kumar & Company (supra)], I do not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
