Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (5) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal with the plea that their application, filed within the time stipulated and limited only to eligible 'input services' in accordance with notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 6th October 2007, should not have been rejected. The appellant is an exporter of 'iron ore' and had, in connection thereof, procured several services, including that of 'technical testing and analysis' on payment of tax which could be claimed as refund by exporters in a procedure corresponding, by and large, to rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had claimed refund of Rs. 96,58,828 and the original authority, having accepted entitlement to Rs. 20,97,907, had declined sanction of Rs. 75,61,731. Resort to appellate remedy before Commissioner of Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be charged from customers outside the taxable territory is enabled through several mechanisms, attendant procedures, intended to ensure that the goods/services relating to the reimbursement/monetisation have been deployed for generating exports, are often resorted to for rejection of such claims. The judicial determination of disputes emanating from a 'much too rigorous' administrative scrutiny has been to permit some latitude in compliance so that the spirit of the intent prevails over the letter of the prescriptions. 5. Insofar as the 'technical testing and analysis' service provided by M/s Met Chem Laboratories is concerned, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the contract with the overseas customer enjoined testing at load .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld be claimed up to 31stDecember 2008 and that the superseding notification [notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July 2009], while revising the deadline to one year from the date of export, was also not limited only to exports effected thereafter. Learned Counsel for appellant also placed before us the decision of the Tribunal in Gran Overseas Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I [2017 (52) STR 286 (Tri-Del)], in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Chandrashekhar Exports [2015-TIOL-2448-CESTAT-MUM], in Adani Enterprises Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2020 (40) GSTL 468 (Tri-Ahmd)] and in KN Resources Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2017 (47) STR 303 (Tri-Del)] besides s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. Insofar as procedural laws are concerned, they may be retrospective unless shown to the contrary. Otherwise also, once the imported parts which were found to be defective are re-exported, assessee under the policy itself without reference to the public notice would be entitled for adjustment of the duty paid by way of adjustment in DEPB. The revenue cannot be permitted to take the stand that it would not refund the duty as it was not paid in cash or deny the adjustment in DEPB book after the goods have been re-exported. which, according to him, espoused that very principle. 7. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. KS Oils Ltd [2017 (52) STR 261 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... within two months from closure of the relevant quarter and, since then, extended to six months from closure of the relevant quarter, enabled the appellant, thereby, to seek relief thereon till 30th September 2008 in relation to exports effected till 31st March 2008 is a reasonable deduction. More so, as it is apparent from the subsequent clarification of Central Board of Excise& Customs (CBEC) that the amendment effected in November 2008 did not specify that the lengthened window for making claims was intended only for future consignments. The decisions of the Tribunal in KS Oils Ltd and in Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt Ltd have confirmed that it was only claims lodged, in relation to exports made during the same period, more than six .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates