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 →

Bharat Art And Crafts, Shivam Export (100% EOU) , Bothra International Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II

2016 (4) TMI 197 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Rejection of refund claim - under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - Goods exported under claim of drawback under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - Appellant contended that drawback did not include the service tax paid on the impugned input services - Held that:- there is no doubt that the impugned services were input services. If the contention of the appellant that these services were not included in fixing the all industry rates of drawback was 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

ion No.33/2008-ST dated 7.12.2008 which expressly or impliedly gave it retrospective effect. It is thus clear that when the goods were exported under claim of drawback, the impugned refund claims would not be admissible by virtue of proviso (e) to Notification No.41/2007-ST also held by CESTAT in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills vs. C.C.E., Jaipur - [2014 (8) TMI 853 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].

Rejection of refund claim - CHA services - Benefit was denied as the description of goods was n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as to which goods the CHA bills related to. Therefore this ground for denial of refund in respect of CHA services is not sustainable. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Service Tax Appeal Nos. 1007, 1008 And 1016/2009 - Dated:- 5-2-2016 - G. Raghuram, President And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri O P Agarwal, CA, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR ORDER Per R. K. Singh These appeals have been filed against respective orders-in-appeal in terms of which refund .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant was not registered both under Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as Finance Act, 1994 3. Services not covered under Port Services 4. Non submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services 12. ST/1008/2009 M/s Shivam Exports, Jodhpur 76,688/- 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008 1. Services not covered under Port Services, 2. Non submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services 3. Proper invoice not submitted (Debit Note not prescribed document) 4. CHA services as per OIO, descr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, ld. Consultant for the appellant concedes that they exported goods under claim of drawback under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 but contended that drawback did not include the service tax paid on the impugned input services because as per the Drawback Rules, the average amount of tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services for the manufacturing or processing or for containing or packing the export goods are taken into account while fixing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

used as input services for the manufacturing or processing or for containing or packing the export goods". It is evident from the above quoted Rule that it merely makes it mandatory for the Central Government to have regard to the average amount of tax paid on taxable services which are used as input services for the manufacturing or processing or for containing or packing the export goods. It by no means implies that Central Government is forbidden to have regard to other input services l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re not included in fixing the all industry rates of drawback was true then there was no need to incorporate the said proviso in Notification No.41/2007-ST as the said proviso would in that case be redundant. There is natural presumption that legislature would not incorporate redundant provisions in law. Further if the said proviso did not affect the eligibility of the exporters for refund under Notification No.41/2007-ST then there was no need for the Govt. to delete the said proviso vide Notifi .....

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