Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Eligibility of refund claim - tax paid on value of services availed in the course of export of iron ore fines - exemption notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July 2009 - Corrigendum/addendum was improper - issued after the receipt of reply to the show cause notice - Held that:- the provisions of the relevant exemption notification require submission of proof that the specified services had indeed been received by the exporter claiming refund of the tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs of the original authority that the applicant is not eligible for refund, owing to non-compliance with the period prescribed for making such applications and the inability of the claimant to evince utilization of eligible services, is sustained. - Decided in favour of revenue - APPEAL NO. ST/752/2012, CROSS-OBJECTION NO: ST/CO-91011/2013 - Order No. A/87411-87412/16/SMB - Dated:- 8-12-2015 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S.R. Nair, Examiner Officer (AR) for the appellant Shri Jayant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anaji for refund of ₹ 18,93,888/- claimed to have been tax paid on value of services availed in the course of export of iron ore fines vide shipping bills no. 1037260 dated 26th June 2009, 1037352 dated 3rd July 2009 and 1037928 dated 17th August 2009. Respondent made this claim based on exemption notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July 2009 which requires payment of tax to the provider of service which is reimbursed by the jurisdictional officer upon submission of prescribed documents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n sought which, consequent to scrutiny, led to issue of addendum on 16th March 2011 pointing out that claim for ₹ 1,29,280/- was also liable to be rejected as it pertained to hiring of shore mobile crane and that the entire claim was, further, liable to be rejected as the invoices submitted as evidence of utilization of services was not in the name of the applicant. Additional objection to that portion of the claim pertaining to the first two shipments was issued as addendum on 29th July 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise, Lucknow v. Orbit Travels [2009 (15) STR 184 (Tri-Del)], did not allow the refund claim. The first appellate authority, however, accepted the contention of M/s Shantadurga Transport Pvt Ltd that issue of corrigendum/addendum was improper in that the entire complexion of the proceedings was thereby altered after receipt of the reply to the original show cause notice. He drew support for this finding from the decision of the Tribunal in re Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (supra) and, setting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ELT 294 (Tri-Del)] did accord its approval to issue of addendum/corrigendum provided that principles of natural justice are observed. It is contended in the appeal that notices were issued and opportunities afforded to the applicant to present their case before the original authority. It was argued that the impugned order had discountenanced two key issues governing refund of tax limitation and identity of tax-payer in restricting the scope of re-adjudication by the lower authority. 6. The learn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

setting out the export invoices and container numbers and that photocopies of invoice/debit notes which were filed certified that the specific services were received regarding export of goods and that Service Tax was remitted and these should have been considered as substantial compliance with Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., does not commend acceptance." It is the submission of the respondent that corrigenda/ addenda issued after the receipt of reply to the show cause notice on minor grounds .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e respondent has not contested the findings of the original authority that the claim had been filed beyond the period specified in the exemption notification in relation to the exports of 26th June 2009 and 3rd July 2009. Such an implicit admission and the absence of any justification for delay in applying for refund renders the ineligibility for refund beyond the question. The absence of the name of the applicant on the various documents evincing payment of tax was sought to be justified on beh .....

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 the exporter claiming refund of the tax paid. In the instant case, the documents evince that services were rendered to M/s MME Exports and not to the respondent herein. The restricted remand in the impugned order would lead to benefits and privileges that are beyond that recognized by law. 8. It is seen that the shipments have also been effected in the name M/s MME Exports. In Vippy Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore [2013-TIOL-1993-CESTAT-DEL] the Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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