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

July 2011

(2011) 22 STR 428 (Tri.-Delhi) CCEx., Jaipur-I v. Unimax Granites (P) Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Refund of CENVAT credit of Service tax under Notification 5/2006-CE(N.T.) — Documents for claiming refund — Photocopy of shipping bill and AR-1 return submitted and not attested by the Customs Officer that goods in fact exported —Attestation by the Customs Officer not required.

Facts:
? The respondents are 100% EOU and availing CENVAT credit on services availed by them. Being an exporter, they are not eligible for utilising CENVAT credit, however, under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, they filed a refund claim. Along with the refund application they submitted AR-1 and shipping bills before the adjudicating authority, who on examination granted the refund.

? Against the said refund claim, the Revenue was in appeal as the photocopy of the shipping bill and AR-1 return were not duly certified by the Customs Officer, but were attested by the respondents themselves.

? The respondent submitted that the said documents were duly certified by the Customs Officer showing that the goods had been exported by them.

Held:
It was concluded that as per the Notification, the attestation of these documents is not required and the refund claim was allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Salary: Interest u/s.234B: Employee is not liable to pay interest u/s.234B for failure to pay advance tax on salary.

(2011) 22 STR 429 (Tri.-Bang.) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. CCEx., Bangalore.