2016 (11) TMI 1481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18/21.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC Insulated Wires and Cables, falling under Chapter 72 and 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P.K. Mittal, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that various taxable services used within the port for exportation of the goods should be considered for refund benefit in terms of Notification dated 06.10.2007. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2015 (40) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.), Shivam Exports vs. CCE, J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccepted the fact that the disputed taxable services were used for export of goods and payments made to the service providers. However, the refund benefit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the services are not confirming to the definition of Port Service. I find from the decision cited by the ld. Advocate that irrespective of the taxable service, if the same are provided within th....