All. HC: No Period of Limitation in Suit for Declaration of Matrimonial Status of Parties  ||  Guj. HC: Lok Adalat Can Only Dispose of Matters Where there is Compromise Between Parties  ||  SC: Not Prudent for HC to Relegate Matter to Trial Court if there are Significant Delays  ||  SC: Failure to Furnish Docs. Relied on by Detaining Authority is Violative of Article 22(5) of COI  ||  SC: Can’t Reject Election Petition at Threshold When there is Compliance of Provisions of RP Act  ||  SC: Can’t Consider Resignation Final Unless its Acceptance is Communicated to the Employee  ||  SC: Once Compensation is Determined, it is Payble Even in Absence of Any Representation or Request  ||  Del. HC: Assessment of Employee’s Performance Must be Limited to the Specified Year  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Delve into Domain of Experts in Assessing Functional Disability of Medical Aspirant  ||  Cal. HC: When Monthly Paybale Amount Surpasses Threshold, Dispute Becomes Subject to Arbitration    

Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T Ahmedabad - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (16 Jul 2024)

Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will be applicable for the export of services prior to 14th March 2006

MANU/CS/0279/2024

Service Tax

The appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated March 14, 2006. These claims pertain to the unutilized balance of Cenvat Credit and the refund of Service tax on services used for exporting goods, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Notification No. 41/2007 dated October 6, 2007.

The said refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by this appellant filed an appeal against the said order. The Ld. Commissioner allowed the appeal with consequential relief and remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority. The said order was challenged by the department before the CESTAT.

The CESTAT remanded back the matter to the Original Adjudication Authority for the issue pertaining to effective date of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT).

The issue in the present matter pertains to the eligibility for revenue benefit from input services used in manufacturing final products for export began on 14th March 2006, with the issuance of Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT). According to revenue authorities, the provisions of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) do not apply to cases before 14th March 2006.

It was observed that the issue is no more res integra. This issue was previously dealt with in the case of WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, 2008-TIOL-228-CESTAT-Mum, wherein it was held that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will be applicable for the export of services prior to 14th March 2006. The refund cannot be rejected as there was no condition in the notification or rules that such notification would apply only in respect of the exports made after 14th March 2006. Taking into consideration the above-stated judgment, it was observed refund claims applications under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of the credit taken will be applicable even to the refunds relating to the period prior to 14th March 2006. In other words, if the application of refund claim is submitted under the amended rule in effect, then the refund cannot be refused solely because the refund pertains to an earlier period. Therefore, impugned orders are set aside. Appeal Allowed.

Tags :   CENVAT CREDIT  REFUND  APPLICABILITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved