Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

2015 (6) TMI 828 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of refund claim - original documents of refund claim not submitted - concerned authority never have them opportunity to produce sample documents - Held that:- refund claim should not be rejected in the manner it has been done in this case - Matter remanded back with the directions that appellant to produce original documents for a period any two months for the period in dispute. - Authorities to process refund subject to direction given to assessee. - Appeal No. ST/21/2009 - Dated:- 29-5- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rvices provided prior to 1.1.2005 i.e. before levy of Service Tax on GTA. ₹ 5,89,950/- 2. Service Tax paid on Coal transported through wagon loading whereas coal transported though wagon loading does not attract Service Tax. ₹ 12,67,866/- 3. Excess payment of Service Tax 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 ₹ 2,72,844/- Total Rs.21,30,660/- On scrutiny of refund claim, the Revenue noticed that the assessee have not submitted original documents/bills indicating that the services are provided p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-6 challans. It was also explained by the appellant that the relevant original documents are bound with other vouchers and accordingly expressed difficulty in carrying the voluminous vouchers and filed to the officer of the Revenue and further prayed that some officials may be deputed to verify the records at the office of the appellant. Subsequently, show-cause notice dated 19.12.2007 was issued requiring the appellant as to why the refund claim should not be rejected under Section 11B read wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

05 will not fall under the category of Goods Transport Agency and hence the appellant is entitled for refund of the said amount. A detailed statement on services received prior to 1.1.2005 was submitted, a copy of which is also annexed in the appeal book. From the bare reading of detailed chart, it is evident that the details of voucher no. and date, name of service provider, Agreement/Work Order No., description of work, bill no., claim period and gross amount and taxable amount as well as tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ilable in the appeal book also which showed similar details like name of the service provider, agreement/work order no., voucher no., bill no. etc. are available. It is also pleaded that the bill no. are not given in respect of some transaction. 2.3 As regards the receipt for ₹ 2,72,844/- on account of excess payment on due to clerical error in calculation, the appellant had filed statement, a copy of which is also available, it is stated that the mistake occurred due to error in calculati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wagon, loading and unloading of the coal and wagon loading did not attract the Service Tax. As regards the claim for excess payment of Service Tax, it is observed that the appellant have not submitted original bills/challans raised by the parties, ST-3 returns for the relevant period showing actual value and Service Tax payable as well as paid. It was further observed that from the documents submitted pertaining to excess payment of Service Tax, there is some mismatch. It was further contended b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anctioning authority and the same has not been done by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The Counsel for the appellant urges that they have never refused to produce the document before the authorities. Further, the concerned authority never have them opportunity to produce sample documents. Further, the stand of the appellant that the documents are bulky has not been found to be untrue. Accordingly, the appellant prays for remand of the matter to the adjud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version