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>Tribunal remands case for fresh adjudication on refund eligibility, emphasizes adherence to specific provisions</h1> <h3>M/s. eShakti. com Private Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai</h3> M/s. eShakti. com Private Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai - TMI Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of refund claims, consideration of claims under different notifications, eligibility for refund under Notification No. 41/2012, and the scope of remand orders.Rejection of Refund Claims:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and exporting ready-made garments, filed refund claims for Service Tax paid on input services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit rules, 2004. The claims were rejected on grounds of non-jurisdiction and non-submission of documents. Appeals were filed before the first appellate authority and subsequently before the Bench, leading to remand of the matters for de novo adjudication.Consideration of Claims under Different Notifications:The appellant filed claims for refund under Notification No. 27/2012, but the Revenue contended that the claims were entertained under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. The first appellate authority allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that claims under inappropriate notifications should not be entertained, even if there were procedural lapses.Eligibility for Refund under Notification No. 41/2012:The appellant argued that they fulfilled all conditions under Notification No. 41/2012 for refund/rebate. They maintained that export incentives should not be denied for procedural lapses and cited relevant legal precedents to support their position. The Departmental Representative challenged the original authority's decision to entertain claims under a different notification during the remand proceedings.Scope of Remand Orders:The Tribunal directed the original authority to examine evidence and pleadings on facts and law during the remand proceedings. The first appellate authority's decision to allow claims under a different notification was questioned by the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters back for a fresh decision on the eligibility of the appellant under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T.
TaxTMI 