Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Adani Enterprises Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) ST No. 22 of 2010
Appeal Number : 04/06/2020
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Adani Enterprises Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

The issue under consideration is whether it is correct to reject the refund on the basis that the registration number of appellant not mention in invoice?

The CESTAT states that on the basis of Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009, it is clear that refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the service provider has not mentioned registration number in their invoices. Moreover, there is no dispute raised  by the Revenue on the facts that goods have been exported, service was used for export of goods and the value of service including service tax was paid to the service provider. In these undisputed facts, merely because registration was not mentioned in the invoices it does not mean that appellant has not used the said services for export of goods. The judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Crystalline Exports Limited (supra) supports their case. Therefore, rejection of refund on this count is not sustainable.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a merchant exporters inter-alia engaged in the business of export of goods. The appellant originally filed refund claim of Rs. 49,81,606/- on 29.05.2008 in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended from time to time of service tax for the services used in export of goods. The said refund claim was filed on account of services received for export of goods for the quarter Jan 2008 to March 2008. The appellant filed letter dated 06.02.2009, withdrew the refund claim amounting of Rs. 29,22,536/- and claimed refund of the balance amount. The Assistant Commissioner of service tax vide order-in-original No. SD-02/Ref-20/09-09 dated 20.08.2009/31.03.2009 sanctioned refund claim of Rs. 1,17,003/- and rejected for the balance amount. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in order-in-appeal No. OIA-270/2009/STC/HKJ/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 08.10.2009 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding the case on merit, in terms of Para 6 of the impugned order confirmed the order-in-original dated 31.03.2009. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on following points;

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031