GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
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

 

 

 

 

 

Advanced Search


Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 IT

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

21-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

More Circulars



|| 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