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>Refund eligibility for exports under service tax disputed, amendment allows refunds post-change</h1> <h3>Jodhana Art & Crafts Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II</h3> The appeals centered on the refund of service tax paid for services used in exporting goods under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. The issue was whether ... Refund - N No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 - Held that: - a part of the period in some of the cases and whole of the period in one of the cases is subsequent to the introduction of the said Notification, Revenue’s objection of denial of refund claims is unsustainable. Accordingly, we remand the matters to the original adjudicating authority for examining the period in question and to decide the same according to law - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Refund of service tax paid on services used for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007.Analysis:1. The issue in the appeals revolved around the refund of service tax paid for services utilized in exporting goods under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. One condition of the Notification stated that no refund would be admissible if the goods were exported under a drawback claim. A previous Tribunal order confirmed this condition.2. The goods in question were indeed exported under a drawback claim, making them ineligible for a refund. However, an amendment to the Notification (No. 33/2008-S.T., dated 7-12-2008) removed this condition. The appellant argued that since exports occurred both before and after the amendment, the denial of refund based on the drawback claim was not valid for the post-amendment period.3. The Departmental Representative acknowledged that if the exports took place on or after 7-12-2008, the assessees were entitled to a refund of the service tax. Given that a portion of the export period in some cases and the entire period in one case fell after the amendment, the objection by the Revenue to deny refund claims was deemed unsustainable.4. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a detailed examination of the relevant periods and a decision in accordance with the law. The authority was instructed to review the documentary evidence and any objections in light of previous Tribunal decisions. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the cases were remanded to the original authority for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
