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 1003 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 1003 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Recovery of refund granted - N/N. 41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007 - the taxable service namely, Terminal Handling Charges is not confirming to the port service and GTA Service availed for movement of export cargo from place of removal to the port of export prior to 19.02.2008 is not available for refund in terms of the above referred Notification - Held that: - the services towards terminal and other handling services were availed b the assessee within 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

ify as port service for the purpose of benefit of refund. Thus, I am of the view that the assessee is eligible for refund of ₹ 16,72,923/- - With regard to GTA service availed for transportation of goods from the place of removal to the port of export, I find that the refund claim was filed after issuance of the Notification No. 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008. I also find that in an identical situation, this Tribunal in the case of East India Minerals Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 22 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vement of goods from the place of removal to the port of export. However, I find that the assessee has not produced the copies of the agreements entered into between it and the overseas buyers. Since the contents of the agreements have to be verified by the Original authority, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for verification of the agreements - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/1383/2010-[SM], Service Tax Appeal No. ST/1470/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee had filed the refund application for ₹ 33,33,715/- under Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007. The said refund application was allowed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise of Service Tax vide order dated 17.07.2008. The said order was reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the impugned order dated 9.07.2010 was passed by him. In the said review order, out of the sanctioned refund amount of ₹ 33,33,715/-, proceedings initiated for recovery .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng of demand of ₹ 15,46,270/- and the assessee has filed the appeal against recovery of amount of ₹ 17,87,445/-. 3. Sh. Karan Sachdev, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Terminal and other handling charges are in connection with export of consignment and those services were availed by the assessee within the port area. Thus, he submits that since the Terminal Handling services have been availed within the port area, irrespective of its classification, the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the port of export prior to 19.02.2008, the submission of the Ld. Advocate is that Notification No. 41/2007 was amended vide Notification No. 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008 and after the date of amendment, the refund claim was filed by the assessee. He further submits that identical issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of East India Minerals Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Bhubaneswar reported in 2012 (27) STR 18 (Tri. Kolkata). 3.2 With regard to testing and analysis service, the Ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which were duly exported under shipping bills signed by the customs authorities. 4. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Mishra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent reiterates the submission made in the grounds of appeal and furthers submits that the agreement entered with the overseas buyer were not produced before the authorities below to show that the goods were in fact exported by the assessee. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the sides and perused the records. 6. It is an admitted fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that irrespective of the classification of service, if the services are provided within the port, the same should qualify as port service for the purpose of benefit of refund. Thus, I am of the view that the assessee is eligible for refund of ₹ 16,72,923/-. 7. With regard to GTA service availed for transportation of goods from the place of removal to the port of export, I find that the refund claim was filed after issuance of the Notification No. 3/2008 dated 19.02.2008. I also find that i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue, since on the date of filing the claims, the requirement of the notification has been satisfied and the service taxes paid in respect of GTA services used for transport of the impugned goods for export from place of removal to the port have become refundable. 8. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for refund of ₹ 1,00,742/- paid on transportation charges for transport of goods from place of removal to the port of export. 9. As regards testing and analysis .....

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