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

April 2014

[2014] 41 taxmann.com 259 (Ahmedabad – CESTAT) Indofil Chemicals Co vs. CCE.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Refund claim by SEZ Unit – What constitutes sufficient evidence for establishing services received and consumed in SEZ?

Facts:
The Appellant in SEZ received GTA services during the period April to September, 2009 and filed a refund claim. The adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim only on the ground that the Appellant did not produce documentary evidences in respect of taxable services provided to SEZ and consumed partially or wholly outside the SEZ.

Held:
Tribunal observed that the refund application is supported with the bills of transport companies, which indicate the consignors or beneficiary of the services as the Appellant in a particular Clause which is in SEZ. From the records, the Tribunal also observed that the said transport company is for transportation of the goods into the SEZ unit and also taking up the goods from the SEZ unit. These documents were held as sufficient evidence before the lower authorities to justify his refund claim and accordingly the claim was allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2014] 41 taxmann.com 318 (Gujarat) CCE vs. Neel Pigments (P.) Ltd

Section 54F – Since assessee had entered into a registered agreement within time period prescribed u/s. 54F, he was entitled to claim exemption even in respect of amounts paid at the time of booking which was more than one year prior to the date of transfer. New house vests in the assessee by registered deed and not by availing of housing loan or payment of booking amount.