TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rebate claims under Notification No. 11/2005-ST could be rejected on the basis of alleged irregular CENVAT credit and other extraneous verifications, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the evidence relating to export of services, receipt of foreign exchange and payment of tax on the exported services.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that, for rebate under Notification No. 11/2005-ST, the relevant enquiry is confined to whether the service was exported, whether consideration was received in foreign exchange, and whether tax was paid on the exported service. It found that verification of the correctness of CENVAT credit availed was not required for deciding the rebate claim. Since the appellants asserted that supporting records, documents and certificates had been produced, the Tribunal found it appropriate to send the matter back for proper appreciation of the evidence and the applicable precedent.
Conclusion: The rejection of rebate claims on the broader grounds was not sustained, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand for fresh consideration by the original authority.
Final Conclusion: The rebate claims were not finally adjudicated on merits, and the original authority was directed to decide them afresh after examining the relevant evidence under Notification No. 11/2005-ST.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
