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 →

Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Indore

2016 (9) TMI 581 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - service tax paid on input services for the period of 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2006, which were used for manufacture and export of final products viz., Soyabean De-oiled cakes and Soya Floor - appellant had not exported the goods under LUT or bond - final product being exempted from payment of Central Excise duty - Held that:- the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. [2010 (5) TMI 3 .....

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. - Decided in favour of appellant - Excise Appeal No.E/3238/2007-EX [DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 52996/2016 - Dated:- 1-4-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Mr.Manish Saharan, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Mishra, D.R. ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer - exporter of Soyabean De-oiled cakes and Soya Floor, which are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. During the di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Excise duty, Cenvat credit was not available on the inputs and input services used in such exempted goods under Rule 6 of the Cenvat rules; that since taking of cenvat credit of service tax paid on the disputed services was outside the purview of Cenvat statute, there was no question of its utilization, and thus, even if the final product was exported, refund was not permissible under Rule 5 of the rules. Appeal filed against the adjudication order was dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in 2015 (321) ELT 502 (Tri. - Mumbai). The ld. Advocate further submitted that the embargo created in sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 ibid is not application to export goods in terms of Rule 6(6)(v) ibid , and thus, refund of service tax paid on the input service is available to the appellant as per Rule 5, even if the final product is exempted. To support his such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court, in the case of CCE - Vs. - Drish Shoes Ltd. .....

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