TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Service Tax Refund Order Quashed, Authority to Reconsider Evidence</h1> The court quashed the order rejecting the claim for refund of Service Tax paid in relation to goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner, ... Refund of Service Tax paid in relation to goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner was rejected, for the reason that the 2nd respondent is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain such claims - it is noticed that, before rejecting the claim the 2nd respondent had never made any demand to the petitioner to produce any records in order to verify whether the claim is coming within his jurisdiction. - The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on taking back the refund claims and to consider and dispose of the same, on the petitioner producing documentary evidence to prove that the goods exported, with respect to which the claim for refund is made, was manufactured totally at their factory at Perambra in Thrissur District Issues: Jurisdiction of authority to entertain claim for refund of Service Tax paid in relation to goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner.Analysis:1. The challenge in the writ petition was against an order rejecting the claim for refund of Service Tax paid in relation to goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner. The reason for rejection was that the authority, the 2nd respondent, did not have jurisdiction to entertain such claims as the exporter was a different entity. The petitioner argued that as per the relevant notification (Ext.Pl), the claim for exemption by the manufacturer-exporter should be submitted before the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse. The petitioner contended that the goods exported were manufactured at their factory in Thrissur District and exported through Cochin Port.2. The standing counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner failed to produce any document supporting their claim to prove that the 2nd respondent had jurisdiction over the claims. However, it was noted that the 2nd respondent did not request any documents from the petitioner before rejecting the claim. The court observed this discrepancy and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter upon the petitioner producing documentary evidence to prove that the goods exported were manufactured at their factory in Thrissur District. The court emphasized that if the petitioner submits a representation with supporting documents, the claim should be considered on its merits and disposed of within one month from the date of receipt of such representation.3. The court concluded that the order rejecting the claim (Ext.P6) was liable to be quashed, and the 2nd respondent was instructed to review the refund claims upon the petitioner providing the necessary documentary evidence. The court emphasized the importance of considering the claim based on the evidence presented by the petitioner and ensuring a timely disposal of the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
