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 →

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal

2016 (11) TMI 1350 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2012 ST - export of services - GTA services - Held that: - The Notification No. 41/2012-ST has been issued in terms of Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification provides for grant of rebate by way of refund of the service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods. It is nobody’s case that the GTA services for which the appellant has claimed rebate of service tax under the notification has not been used for export of goods. Consequently, there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appeal No. 52365 to 52368 of 2016- (SM) - FO/ 54901-54904 /2016-(SM) - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Z U Alvi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3.5.2016. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of mechanical electrical and electronics equipments falling under Chapter 84, 85, 87 and 94. They ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y for transportation of export consignment from their works at Bhopal to the port of Export. The Service tax was paid by them under the provisions of notification No. 13/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012, under reverse charge mechanism. The rebate claims were filed claiming rebate of such Service Tax paid. However, these claims were rejected by origiinal authority vide its order dated 20.10.2014 as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 3.5.16. 3. Hence the present appeal. 4. Hear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x on reverse charge mechanism. However, he submits that the service which was provided by other person is used for export of goods by them. The said interpretation of clause 3 (b) would defeat the very purpose of the notification which has been issued for grant of rebate of service tax on the taxable service received by an exporter and used for export of goods. Such a limited interpretation would deny the benefit to this exporter who had paid the service tax under reverse charge mechanism. 6. Le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation needs to be interpreted liberally to determine the applicability in the case of an assesse but subsequently to be construed strictly while interpreting the clauses of notification. 7. To support his argument that the statute must be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. He finally submitted that the rebate may be sanctioned to the assesse. 8. The learned DR on the other hand, reiterates the finding of the authorities below. His submission is that any notifi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. The rejection by the authority below is on the basis of the clause 3(b) reads as follows. 3. the rebate shall be claimed in the following manner, namely:- (a).... (b) the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification; 10. The appellant being the receiver of the GTA service was required to pay the service tax on reverse charge basis. In terms 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

lls within its terms. But once the provision is applicable to him, full affect must be given to it. They have relied upon the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court to support the argument:- 1. UOI vs. Wood Papers Ltd. [1990 (47) ELT 500 (SC)]; 2. Novapen India Ltd. vs. CCE [1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC)]; 3. CCE vs. Malwa Industries [2009 (235) ELT 214 (SC)] 11. It is also their submission that the notification gives two options for claiming the rebate for service tax on services used for ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

b) which stands denied. 12. The Notification No. 41/2012-ST has been issued in terms of Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification provides for grant of rebate by way of refund of the service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods. It is nobody s case that the GTA services for which the appellant has claimed rebate of service tax under the notification has not been used for export of goods. Consequently, there is no doubt that the appellant falls within the gamut .....

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