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

2016 (11) TMI 159 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (11) TMI 159 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Refund - 100% EOU - Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules - Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - Held that: - the impugned order is not sustainable in law denying the refund claim in respect of banking and financial services, BAS, and visa charges, I set aside the impugned order to that extent and hold that these services fall under the definition of input services and it has nexus with the manufacturing activity 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

service was allowed only. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellant is a 100% EOU and holder of private bonded warehouse license and in-bond manufacture Sanction Order dated 5/2006 and export flavours, essences and odiferous substances falling under chapter heading 3302 1010 of CETA, 1985. 2. The appellant filed refund of ₹ 10,94,507/- on 3.4.2012 for the period July 2011 to September 2011 under Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ces and further CENVAT credit has been claimed with regard to certain services which has not been shown in the excise returns. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the rejection of partial claim is ex facie illegal and untenable in law and is against the precedent decisions rendered by higher judicial fora. He also submitted that out of ₹ 1,19,157/-, refund was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd.: 2009 (15) S.T.R. 169 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) JSW Steels Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (14) S.T.R. 310 4.1 As far as Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) is concerned, the impugned order rejected the refund of ₹ 6,907/- by holding that services claimed under BAS i.e., CHA and insurance are claimed separately by the appellant and the appellant has not clarified as to why they claimed refund of these two services under the category of BAS when they made separate claims under the said services. Learned couns .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submitted that findings in the impugned order that the appellant had claimed excess credit in refund application when compared to that with the returns, learned counsel admitted that they had claimed short credit in returns whereas the refund claim has correctly been filed and to justify it, CA certificate was also filed. He further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (A) has mistaken two issues as one i.e., first issue is excess availment of CENVAT credit .....

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