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 →

Sponge Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E., & S.T., Raipur

2015 (11) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of refund claim - Denial on the ground that authorization letter does not contain the signature of authorized signatory, although it bears the signature of the Director - Notification No. 41/2012 dated 29.6.2012 - Held that:- This is explained by the appellant that it might be due to mistake while taking photocopy of the authorization letter dated 14.3.2013. While photocopying the authorization letter which was in Legal Size Paper to an A-4 Size Paper, the signature of Anand Agarwal put a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim on such a ground is totally unjustified. - adjudicating authority had properly considered the objections raised by the Range Superintendent. Admittedly the service tax for the impugned services used for export of goods has been paid. In such circumstances denial of refund on technical ground if any is not sustainable, as laid in various judgements. The refund claim is only to be allowed. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/50413-50414/2015-ST(SM) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 16,93,619/- under Notification No. 41/2012 dated 29.06.2012 in respect of Port services, Technical Testing & Analysis Service, GTA service and Banking & Financial Services availed for export of Iron Ore in regard to six shipping Bills of various dates. On verification of the refund claim the Jurisdictional Superintendent noted the following defects. (i) That appellant had not submitted document under Rule 11 which indicate goods have been removed from the place of removal as under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by Board of Directors is not attested and the letter of authorization does not bear signature of Shri Anand Aggarwal. Therefore certificate of authorization is not valid. (iv) That in case of GTA services, the payment of balance amount is shown as pending with regard to Mahavir Transport, M/s Yash Transport and M/s Trinath Transport which means appellant has not paid fully to the services providers. (v) The bank realization certificate indicated that amount realized in INR against bill amount r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Order-in-Original pointed out that the adjudicating authority had sanctioned the refund claim after considering all the objections raised by the Range Superintendent. Moreover, that the objection so raised were merely technical and that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses, if any. 5. The learned DR supported the impugned order and argued that the claim has been rightly rejected. Heard both sides and perused the records. Let me now consider the objections raised for denying .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th regard to the alleged defect in the invoices that the place of removal is not shown, the learned Counsel for appellant pointed out that, the place of removal is shown as Vishakapatnam. The Bench then asked the DR what is the defect in the invoices and what is the ground for saying that the invoices are not in order as per Rule 11. The learned AR Shri M.R. Sharma was fair enough to concede that the invoices are in order. The observations of adjudicating authority in this regard is noteworthy w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd of service tax paid against GTA service for transportation of goods from various places of India (from where the export goods were purchased to Vizag port is admissible to the party (claimant). I also find that in other way, the claimant has also the option of claiming exemption from payment of service tax on GTA service under Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 in respect of export goods. The party instead of claiming exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-ST has claimed refund of .....

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