Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

C.C.E. Jaipur-II Versus M/s Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. And Vice-Versa

2016 (11) TMI 1003 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 port area, in connection with export of the go .....

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 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] has allowed the refund claim to the appellant. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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/1470/2010-[SM] - Final Order No. 54815-54816 /2016 - D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 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 of ₹ 15,46,270/- were dropped and the b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee 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 should be considered as port service for the 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

e 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. Advocate has submitted the certificate showin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 on record that the services towards terminal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vice, 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 in an identical situation, this Tribunal in 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

e 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 service, I find from the available records th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version