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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Versus M/s Suraj Impex India Pvt Ltd

2015 (11) TMI 1415 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of refund claim - use of Technical Testing Services in export of goods - Held that:- there is no doubt that the said service was used in relation to exported goods and such testing was required to be done as per the written agreement with the buyers and also the said service is duly covered under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 and therefore we fail to comprehend the ground on which the Revenue considered this amount of refund to be inadmissible.

As regards the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

service tax therein because the said judgement nowhere states that the refund of service tax paid under Port Services is not admissible as per Notification No,41/2007-ST. No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/532/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order No. ST/A/52705/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Suchitra Sharma, DR For the Respondent : Mr Ashutosh Upadhyay, Adv ORDER Per R K Singh Revenue is in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted the rejection of refund of an amount of ₹ 99,341/- on the following grounds (i) refund of ₹ 12,010/-was on account of the service tax paid on "Technical Testing Services" because as per the written agreement with the buyer of the exported goods the respondent was required to get the technical testing conducted, (ii) The amount of ₹ 87,331/- was the service tax paid on wharfage charges which was paid under "Port Services", (iii) Both these services are co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(iii) As regards the refund of ₹ 87331/- Revenue contended that in support of its claim the respondent submitted bills raised by Bombay Port Trust and they were in the name of M/s. Micro Clearing Agency raised for demurrages, detention and wharfage charges and the services do not qualify under Notification No.41/2007-ST. (iv) Revenue cited CESTAT judgement in the case of Velji P & Sons (Agencies) Vs. CCE, Bhavnagar [2007 (8) STR 236 (Tri-Ahmd)]. 3. In its cross objections and during h .....

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