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 Ginni Filaments Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow

2017 (7) TMI 414 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007 ST - denial on the ground that appellant did not supply ARE-1 and shipping bills (major proof of export documents) to the sanctioning authority nor to the appellate authority - Held that: - appellant states that self attested copies of ARE-1 documents were submitted with the refund claim. Further, he states that Copies of shipping bills received from Head Office were filed subsequently in reply to show cause notice. Further, Link chart of exports vis-`-vis input servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

based on input invoices/bills/challans showing service tax charged by the service providers-as clarified in para-4 of Circular No.106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008 - refund allowed. - Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed - Held that: - appellant had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is available in the appeal paper book, stating that they have not availed Cenvat credit during the period in qu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

claim - denial on the ground that the appellant did not submit any evidence that the service provider were authorized by port trust or other port to render the services - Held that: - Board Circular No. 112, clarifies that the granting of refund to exporters on taxable services that he receives and uses for export, do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted, in such cases, if otherwise in order - refund allowed. - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt is also there - this ground also is untenable, as the container number given on invoice for freight is found co-relatable with export documents - refund allowed. - Refund claim - CHA services - it is alleged that appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of CHA Services as given in serial No. 13 of the notification - Held that: - The ld. counsel have taken me through the sample invoices of the CHA, on record, wherein we find that bill of lading number and date, export container number, v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of service providers in a different category (CHA) is not material for grant of refund in the eligible category - refund allowed. - Refund claim - C & F Service - Held that: - From the bill it is evident that the services have been provided in the nature of terminal handling charges and documentation charges - these services are eligible services at the same are also provided by the CHA or C & F and also fall under the port services. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to .....

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.C. Kamra & Shri Kartikey Narain, Advocates for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in these appeals is, whether the refund claims made by the appellant, an exporter of cotton garments, made under the provisions of Notification No.41/2007 ST as amended, being Service tax paid and utilized in the course of export, whether the same have been rightly refused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imed Rs.3,15,813/- Refund rejected Rs.3,15,813/- Order-in-Original 164/Refund/2009 dt. 21.12.2009 Order-in-Appeal No. 477-ST/LKO/2010 dt. 27.12.2010 3. Heard the parties. 4. The ld. counsel for the appellant explains that the refund has been rejected with respect to various services. The details of which are as follows: 4.1.1 The first objection is that as per para-2 (f) (i) of the Notification No.41/07-ST, refund claim should be accompanied by documents evidencing export of goods. 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

e original authority. 4.1.3 The learned A.R. for revenue relies on the impugned order. 4.1.4 Having considered the rival contentions, we hold that appellant had filed the documents, as required. 4.2.1 The Second objection is that as per para-2 (f) (ii) of the notification, refund claim shall be accompanied by documents evidencing payment of service tax on the specified services. The appellant failed to furnish such duty payment documents. 4.2.2 The learned counsel states that the Board has clari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d, if no Cenvat credit of service tax paid on specified services used for export has been taken. The findings of the lower court below are that the appellant did not produce any evidence to establish that no Cenvat was availed. 4.3.2 The ld. counsel states that they had themselves certified in writing, a copy of which is available in the appeal paper book, stating that they have not availed Cenvat credit during the period in question. The ld. counsel also states that the appellant was availing C .....

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- the appellant did not submit any evidence that the service provider, were authorized by port trust or other port to render the services. 4.4.2 The learned counsel for the appellant have drawn my attention to Board Circular No. 112/06/2009 ST, wherein the difficulties faced by exporters was taken into account in getting the refund and clarifications, were issued by the Board. It is clarified that the service provider is holding registration under clearing and forwarding agency and 'bus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble. 4.5.1 The next ground of rejection is regarding transport of goods by rail that is the services of transporting the container from the ICD, by Container Corporation of India (Concor) to the Gateway Port. The objection in the impugned order is that the appellant failed to certify the conditions of the services by Rail and hence refund is not available. 4.5.2 The appellant have taken us through the sample invoice of Concor in the appeal paper book, in which Concor have given the container num .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mple invoices of the CHA, on record, wherein we find that bill of lading number and date, export container number, vessel name, port of loading, port of delivery, description of export goods etc., is given. 4.6.3 In this view of the matter, we hold that all the relevant information is available for allowing the refund of CHA Services received. 4.7.1 The next ground of objection is regarding Handling of export containers within the port. M/s Global Container Logistics & other 3 parties provid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot material for grant of refund in the eligible category. 4.7.3 Accordingly, we allow this ground & dismiss objection of Revenue. 4.8.1 The next ground of rejection, which is in Appeal No. ST/534/2010 is with respect to C & F Agent Services on the ground that the said service was notified by way of amendment with effect from 07/12/2008. Since all the bills of the C & F Agents were issued prior to the said date, no refund of Service tax was held payable. 4.8.2 The ld. Counsel, have ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Appeal No.ST/534/2010 is for disallowance with respect to GTA Services. The appellant have incurred the services for transport of the goods in the course of export to Bangladesh, wherein the goods are factory stuffed and sealed and permitted for export. 4.9.2 Accordingly, as explained, we find that the GRN issued by the transporter shows that the goods have been packed in container. Further, such details are co-relatable with the let export order and the invoice of the appellant. 4.9.3 Accordi .....

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