Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Appellant's Rebate Claims for Service Tax, Emphasizes Compliance with Notification</h1> <h3>M/s Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, C.E. & S.T., Noida</h3> M/s Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, C.E. & S.T., Noida - 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 416 (Tri. - All.) Issues Involved:1. Allowance of rebate claim under Notification No.12/2005-ST.2. Eligibility of input services for rebate.3. Clerical mistakes in ST-3 returns.4. Compliance with conditions of Notification No.12/2005-ST.5. Rejection of rebate claims based on estimates in prior declarations.Detailed Analysis:1. Allowance of Rebate Claim under Notification No.12/2005-ST:The appellant filed rebate claims for service tax paid on input services used in providing output services under Notification No.12/2005-ST for two periods: April to September 2010 and January to March 2010. The claims were initially rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit, which was contrary to the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal, however, found that the rejection was not based on a reasoned and speaking order and held that the appellant was entitled to the rebate claim under the provisions of the said notification.2. Eligibility of Input Services for Rebate:The Tribunal examined whether the input services claimed by the appellant were eligible for rebate. The Commissioner (Appeals) had disallowed certain services such as printing and stationery expenses, postage and courier, professional charges, and interest expenses, stating they were not required for providing output services. The Tribunal, however, referenced a precedent where similar services were deemed necessary for a software unit and thus eligible. The Tribunal concluded that all input services claimed by the appellant were utilized for the export of services and were eligible for rebate.3. Clerical Mistakes in ST-3 Returns:The appellant argued that the figures showing Cenvat credit in the ST-3 returns were a clerical mistake, and they had not actually availed or utilized the Cenvat credit. They supported this claim with a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, referencing a previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's favor where a similar clerical mistake was made. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify the appellant's records to confirm that no Cenvat credit was availed and to disburse the rebate accordingly.4. Compliance with Conditions of Notification No.12/2005-ST:The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the rebate claims based on the appellant's alleged non-compliance with condition No.2(e) of the notification, which prohibits availing Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that the appellant had substantially complied with all conditions of the notification and that minor procedural non-compliances should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. The Tribunal cited the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruling in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Convergys India Pvt. Ltd., which supported the view that procedural lapses should not deny substantive concessions.5. Rejection of Rebate Claims Based on Estimates in Prior Declarations:The Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected part of the rebate claims on the ground that the actual claims exceeded the estimates provided in prior declarations. The Tribunal found this interpretation to be uncalled for and against the spirit of the notification. It held that prior declarations were merely estimates and that discrepancies between estimated and actual claims were to be expected. The Tribunal ruled that no part of the rebate could be rejected on this ground.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the appellant's records to confirm that no Cenvat credit was availed. The authority was directed to complete this verification within 75 days and disburse the eligible rebate claims. The appellant was instructed to present their documents and registers for verification and seek an opportunity for a hearing.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found