TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Commissioner upholds refund for service tax on rice exports, emphasizing substance over technicalities.</h1> <h3>C.C.E. & S. Tax, Raipur Versus Satyam Balaji Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.</h3> C.C.E. & S. Tax, Raipur Versus Satyam Balaji Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 1004 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Claim for refund of service tax not in strict technical compliance with stipulated requirements.Analysis:The appeal was filed by Revenue challenging the respondent's claim for a refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,62,030, contending that the claim did not strictly comply with the requirements of the relevant notifications. The respondent had initially filed a claim for refund of Rs. 44,03,972, stating that the service tax paid on taxable services was utilized for the export of rice and broken rice. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax sanctioned the refund as claimed. Revenue's appeal, however, focused on three components of the refund, specifically regarding port service and storage & warehousing service, claimed based on bills provided by a service provider. The Revenue argued that the refund should not be granted due to missing information on the bills, non-compliance with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, and ineligibility as per Notification No.17/2009-ST. The appellate Commissioner rejected Revenue's appeal, noting that the service provider was registered, had paid service tax, and the nature of the taxable service was clearly mentioned on the bills. The Commissioner found that all conditions for claiming the refund were met, except for a clerical error in affixing stamps on some bills.The appellate Commissioner concluded that the claimant had fulfilled all conditions for the refund, except for the clerical error on some bills. Revenue did not dispute the findings supporting the claim for the refund of service tax paid on taxable services used for exporting rice and broken rice. The appeal by Revenue was deemed misconceived and dismissed, with no costs awarded. The judgment highlighted that the rejection of the refund claim based on a technical error, when all other conditions were met, was not justifiable. The Revenue's grounds for appeal were reiterated but found to lack merit based on the established facts and compliance with the relevant notifications. The decision upheld the grant of the refund to the respondent, emphasizing the importance of substance over technicalities in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
