SC: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Follow if an Officer is Discharged on the Same Charge  ||  SC Clarified the Distinction Between Arbitration “Seat” And “Venue” While Summarising Key Principles  ||  Supreme Court: Wife and Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry-Giving Based On Her Complaint  ||  SC: Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the Ground of Order II Rule 2 Bar  ||  Supreme Court Has Issued an SOP Prescribing Strict Timelines For Filing Legal Aid Appeals  ||  Madras HC: Dhurandhar 2 Release Cannot be Stalled Due to Objections From a Small Section  ||  Delhi HC: Lokpal May Form Prima Facie Opinion Before Show Cause Notice Without Prior Hearing  ||  Bom HC: Family Courts Cannot Casually Order a Spouse’s Medical Examination to Assess Mental Health  ||  Bombay HC: Child Care Leave Protects Motherhood and Denial Violates Rights of Mother and Child  ||  Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved