2018 (11) TMI 1087

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shankarraman, Advocate For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar The appellants are manufacturers of textile machinery parts, bright bars and terry towels etc. During the course of audit, it was noticed that they had incurred certain expenses towards Business Exhibition conducted abroad during the period from April 2008 to N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he penalty under Section 76 however upheld the remaining part of the order of original authority. Hence appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri J. Shankarraman submits that the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled in their own case for an earlier period by CESTAT Chennai in Final Order No.42941....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... view of clear provision of 2006 Rules, we find no justification for such conclusion. We also refer to the decision of Tribunal in Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad - 2009 (95) RLT 111 (CESTAT-Ahmd.) holding that when service is fully provided outside, there is no applicability of reverse charge mechanism. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is se....