Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-II Versus M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

2015 (8) TMI 1073 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Courier service and CHA service - Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that:- Service tax paid by the service provider under some different services (i.e. other than CHA), cannot be considered to be paid under CHA service. It is stated that the service provider wrongly paid the Service Tax under CHA, which would be covered under the category of taxable services as Business Auxiliary Service. We are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue for the reason t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es not specify the Import Export Code (IEC), number of exporters, export invoice number, nature of courier. We find that the schedule to the exemption notification provides that the receipt issued by the courier agency specify the importer-exporter (IEC) code number of the exporter, export invoice number, nature of courier, destination of courier including name and address of the recipient of the courier. - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Respondent has submitted the copies of all shipp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve For the Respondent : Shri J.C. Patel, Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocates ORDER Per: P. K. Das Revenue filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication order was modified insofar as the refund claim filed by the Respondent in respect of CENVAT Credit of input Service Tax on Courier service and CHA service under Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was allowed and the refund claim which is not filed within 60 days from the end of relevant quarter during which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to June 2009 under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dt.17.10.2007 as amended by Notification No.03/2008-ST, dt.19.02.2008. The Respondents filed refund claims in respect of services used by them in export of goods viz. Customs House Agent (CHA) charges and Courier/Freight charges. Two show cause notices dt.10.12.2009 and 05.04.2009 were issued, proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground of non-fulfillment of conditions of the notification. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubmitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined this issue. He relied upon the following decision as under:- i) King Metal Works Vs CST Mumbai 2015 (38) STR 973 (Tri-Mum) It has been held that the refund claim was rightly rejected on the ground of non-fulfillment of condition regarding furnishing of contract and non-mentioning of amount paid to commission agent in the shipping bills. ii) CCE Vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 629 (All.) It has been held that the proced .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on charges not admissible in the absence of written agreement and in the absence of non-fulfillment of conditions stipulated in Notification No.41/2007-ST. 4. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find that the main contention of the Revenue is that the service tax paid by the service provider under some different services (i.e. other than CHA), cannot be considered to be paid under CHA service. It is stated that the service provider wrongly paid the Service Tax under CHA, which would be cover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submitted a copy of the relevant invoice during the course of hearing. The learned Advocate demonstrated that all the information as required under the law had complied with. We find that the Revenue had not mentioned any specific irregularity to the extent of non-fulfillment of condition of notification in their grounds of appeal. So, we are not impressed with the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 5. Regarding the denial of refund on Courier service, it is stated that by the Revenue in their g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version