Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund of service tax paid on storage and warehousing services for export goods, claimed under Notification No. 41 of 2007 dated 6th October, 2007, gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference.
Analysis: The refund claim related to warehousing charges for storage of export goods, and the record showed that the goods had in fact been exported. The claim was thus supported by material and was not a case where the notification conditions were ignored altogether. The Tribunal had dealt with the factual controversy within the legal parameters applicable to refund claims, and its view that the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence did not justify interference in appeal. The further contention that a merchant exporter was not entitled to refund was not treated as a ground on which the claim had been contested before the Tribunal, and no view was expressed on that point.
Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The appeal was not entertainable and stood dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim under a beneficial notification is supported by proof of export and the dispute is essentially factual, no substantial question of law arises merely because the Revenue challenges the factual appreciation.