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

2016 (9) TMI 581 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 581 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the same, the impugned order is set aside. - 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 p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roduct being exempted from payment of Central 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 w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly Board Ltd. -Vs. - CCE, Aurangabad, reported 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, .....

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