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 587 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 587 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Refund claim - Cenvat Credit of tax paid on various input services in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with notification no. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 - services rendered by assessee amounts to export of services or not - Held that:- the Appellate Authority is not disputing the fact that the Tribunal's decision in the same assessee’s case has held that the services rendered by them are required to be held as export of services, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s decision. In as much as the Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee, I find no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of appellant - ST/50442/2016-ST(SM) - Final Order No. 53014/2016-ST(SM) - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Pravesh Khandelwal & Shri Vipin, CA for the Applicants Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Pravesh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut services which were exported. The said refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 18.09.2013 on the main ground that the services rendered by the assessee did not amount to export of services. There were other reasons relatable to production of documents, etc., which were also adopted by Assistant Commissioner for rejection of the refund claim. 2. On appeal against the said order, Commissioner (A) set aside the same by observing that the refund claim was file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the re-adjudication, the original adjudicating authority, in terms of law declared by the Tribunal in the same assessee's case held that the refund is admissible to the assessee and accordingly allowed the same to the extent of ₹ 16 99,844/-, vide his order dated 27.05.2015. 4. Being aggrieved with the said order of original Adjudicating Authority, Revenue filed the appeal these against before Commissioner (A), on various grounds. The assessee also filed cross objection by submitting t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in ST/819/2008 granted in favour of the respondent for the export of its services for the period 19.04.2006 to 28.02.2007 that the matter is tagged by the Supreme Count along with connect matters and the same is under review. They argued that the avertments made in the Appeal that the refund order granted to the respondent is not proper and legally correct on the grounds that the Department has gone into further appeal before the Commissioner (A) against the service tax refund granted by the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds that the same is incorrect, erroneous and illegal. I do not feel myself in agreement with the contention of the respondent in as much as the fact that the question of law when challenged in higher forum, till decided in a manner that it attains finality and is accepted b one and all, remains open and obviously the stand of the department is absolutely in consonance to the said principle. I therefore, feel that the department has highly pointed out that refund order is legally improper on this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Roy on 10.07.2015 after condoning the delay admitted the Civil Appeal Diary No. 16887 of 2015 filed by Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi IV against the CESTAT Final order No. ST/A 53737/2014-CU(DB) dated 23.09.2014 and Misc order No. ST/18/2011 dated 9.11.2011 as reported in 2014 (36) STR 766 (Tri-Del) (Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner). While admitting the appeal the Supreme Court passed the following order: Delay condoned. Admit. Tag with SIP (C) No, 29712/2014 In view of .....

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