Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate Chennai Versus M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 605 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-1-2018
E/Misc./41198/2017 & E/CO/49/2010 & E/352/2010, E/Misc./41021/2017 & E/100/2011, E/CO/14 & 15/2011 and E/187 & 188/2011 – A/40228-40231/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) – for the Appellant
Shri P.R. Renganathan, Advocate – for the Respondent
ORDER
Per B. Ravichandran,
These four appeals are by Revenue against various impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Chennai. The impugned orders
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ervices were specifically covered under “designing services” and the respondents are eligible for refunds. The Revenue contested the said orders stating that these are not designing service and mere conversion of 2D image to 3D drawing will not make it a designing work.
2. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
3. At the outset, both sides agree that for the very same respondent, for the earlier periods, on the same dispute, the matter came up before the Tribunal. The case was decided as reported in 2011 (24) STR 74 (Tri. Chennai). In the said order, the Tribunal held that the services rendered by the respondents were appropriately to be considered under “consulting engineer's service. The period covered in the said appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ent's own case, we are holding that the respondents did export taxable service, they are eligible for refund as claimed under Rule 5. We note that in the earlier proceedings also the Tribunal remanded the matter for other verifications like documents, quantification of such refund. Though the respondents submitted that the original proceedings did not raise these issues, we note that sanction of refund would necessarily involve verification of documents along with required details.
4. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find that the appeals presently filed by the Revenue are without merit. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
5. The miscellaneous application filed for change of cause title of the name of the appellant to Com
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =