CCE Vs. AMBUJA CEMENT EASTERN LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 27/09/05 which allowed the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim.

(2.) THE relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent sought services on a consulting engineer situated in Australia in respect of their plant at Raipur. The respondent paid the amount of service tax payable on such consultancy services received by them in April, 2004. Subsequently when they received communication from the consulting engineer that they have office in India, the respondent filed the refund claim with the authorities relying upon Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, hence revenue's appeal.

(3.) THE learned DR submits that the refund claim is not liable to be sanctioned because the department has in their possession letter written by the Chennai office of the foreign consultant indicating that they have not provided any services to the respondent. It is also his submission that the respondent failed to intimate the department regarding the existence of the office in India in order to recover the service tax same from the foreign consultant.