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 →

CCE, Mumbai-I Versus M/s King Metal Works

2015 (4) TMI 1098 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Rectification of mistake - Refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-ST by the appellant but adjudicating authority considered the claim's as per the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007 - Service tax paid on input services received & used in relation to manufacture - Held that:- “that the appellant had filed the claim of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules” be read as “that the appellant had originally filed the refund claim under No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ST/ROM/693/12 In Appeal No. ST/166/10-Mum - Order No. M/4675/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 7-4-2015 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri B.K. Iyer, Supdt. (A.R.) For the Respondent : None ORDER PER: ANIL CHOUDHARY: The revenue have filed the present application for rectification of mistake in the final order dated 9/9/2011. The Ground for rectification is that the respondent-assessee had filed claim of refund under Notification No. 5/2006-ST and the said refund claim was 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

al is on a different issue, that is, since exporter is a manufacturer and exporter s final product is exempted, the refund claim has been rejected in the Order-in-Original. This issue has not been taken up for adjudication. The show-cause notice also states that limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Notification No. 41/2007. There is no where any mention of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Whereas this Tribunal in final order had discussed the whole issue in terms .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

without admitting that they are not covered by the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-ST, they had said that the claim of refund may be considered under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE. 3. From a perusal of the Order-in-Appeal I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) have also considered the liability of refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and have disallowed the same holding that the refund is available to a manufacture and/or the providers of out .....

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