Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        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 grants refund for services despite timing dispute, emphasizing eligibility under Notification No. 09/2009-ST.</h1> <h3>Wardha Power Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur</h3> Wardha Power Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - [2012] 35 STT 499 (MUM - CESTAT), 2013 (30) S.T.R. 520 (Tri. - Mumbai), [2012] ... Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of refund claim for services received prior to March 2009.2. Time-barred refund claims.3. Invoices without Service Tax Registration No. or address of the service provider.4. Correlation of input services with authorized operations in SEZ.5. Submission of original invoices.6. Double claim of service tax on some invoices.7. Requirement of Chartered Accountant's certificate for usage in SEZ operations.Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of refund claim for services received prior to March 2009:The appellant claimed a refund for services received before March 2009 but paid for after March 2009. The appellate authority initially rejected this claim based on Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. However, it was argued that the exemption applied to services paid for on or after 03.03.2009, regardless of when the services were rendered. The tribunal concluded that the timing of the service payment, not the service provision, was crucial, thus rejecting the department's argument and allowing the refund.2. Time-barred refund claims:The refund claim was partially rejected as time-barred, exceeding the six-month limit after service tax payment. The tribunal upheld that the refund claims must adhere to the stipulated timeframe, emphasizing the importance of timely submission for eligibility.3. Invoices without Service Tax Registration No. or address of the service provider:Some invoices lacked essential details like Service Tax Registration No. or the service provider's address. The tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the judgment, implying that the primary focus was on the broader eligibility criteria rather than procedural lapses in documentation.4. Correlation of input services with authorized operations in SEZ:The department argued that some services could not be correlated with authorized SEZ operations. The appellant countered that the services were approved by the Development Commissioner and used in authorized operations. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the services were indeed utilized in authorized operations and approved by the relevant authority, thus eligible for a refund.5. Submission of original invoices:The rejection of refund claims due to the non-submission of original invoices was not directly addressed. However, the tribunal's overall decision to allow the refund suggests that this procedural requirement was either fulfilled or deemed non-critical in this context.6. Double claim of service tax on some invoices:The tribunal did not find substantial evidence or argumentation regarding double claims of service tax, focusing instead on the broader eligibility and approval issues. Thus, this ground for rejection was implicitly dismissed.7. Requirement of Chartered Accountant's certificate for usage in SEZ operations:The department contended that the Deputy Commissioner should have verified the actual use of services instead of relying solely on the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The tribunal referred to the Board's circular dated 19.01.2010, which allowed for such certification. It concluded that the reliance on the Chartered Accountant's certificate was appropriate and in line with procedural guidelines, thereby validating the refund claims based on these certificates.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant met the necessary conditions for refund claims as per Notification No. 09/2009-ST. The tribunal dismissed the department's objections regarding the timing of service provision, the place of service receipt, and the reliance on Chartered Accountant's certificates, thereby granting the appellant the refund with consequential relief.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found