75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

March 2012

(2012) 25 STR 78 (Tri-Mum.) — Indoworth (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant engaged in manufacture — Exported such goods to various countries — Filed refund under port services — Refund was rejected on ground that service provider registered under Business Auxiliary Services — Held, Once service tax is paid, the same cannot be disputed — Revenue cannot withdraw the refund — Refund allowed.

Facts:
The appellant engaged in manufacture of various types of textile worsted yarn and also exported the said products to various countries. By seeking benefit under Notification 41/2007-ST, the appellant claimed refund of the service tax paid by them on various specified services used in relation to export of goods. The refund claim so filed was rejected on the ground that when tax is collected considering the services as port service, refund cannot be granted considering it otherwise.

Held:
It was held that once the service tax paid on the eligible specified services and used the same for export, verification of registration certificate would not be required. Hence, the Revenue cannot withdraw the refund and appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

(2011) 25 STR 68 (Tri.-Del.) — Em Pee Motors v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh.

(A) ITAT: Jurisdiction: Power and scope: Decision on a matter not arising in appeal: AO not disputing genuineness of transaction: Not questioned genuineness before CIT(A) or Tribunal: Tribunal treating transaction sham is erroneous. (B) Non-competition fee received by assessee prior to 1-4-2003 is capital receipt and not taxable.