Selective Minerals & Color Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 255 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 16-8-2018
APPEAL Nos. ST\/86647, 86649\/2018 – A\/87104-87105\/2018
Service Tax
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
\nShri R.V. Shetty, Advocate, for appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivalikar, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent
\nORDER
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. These two appeals are filed against respective orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Belapur, Mumbai.
\n3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a merchant exporter and filed refund claims for the period July 2012 to September 2012 and October 2012 to Dec<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n could not be submitted before the authorities below, resulting into rejection of the refunds. He submits that now they are in possession of all the relevant documents by which they could establish that the service tax paid on various services were in fact used in export of the goods. He prays that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of these documents. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Selective Minerals & Color Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai WestService Tax2018 (9) TMI 255 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 16-8-2018APPEAL Nos. ST\/86647, 86649\/2018 – A\/87104-87105\/2018Service TaxDr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate, for appellant Shri O.M. Shivalikar, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Heard both sides. 2. … Continue reading “Selective Minerals & Color Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Learned AR for the Revenue referring to the impugned order has submitted that since the appellant could not submit relevant documents in support of their claims that the goods were exported and the services on which service tax paid have been used in the export, the claims were accordingly rejected. However, he has no objection in remanding the matter<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n