SUNRISE EXPORTS Versus CCT, Guntur GST
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 657 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 1-10-2018
ST\/30775\/2018 – A\/31252\/201
Service Tax
Mr. P.K. Choudhary, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri P. Venkat Prasad, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent \/AR
\nORDER
\nPER: MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY
\n1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in business of export of granites. They applied for refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 51,440\/- paid on Custom House Agency (CHA) services. The services were used for export of goods to foreign countries. The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the refund. Thereafter, the order was reviewed and an appeal was filed by Revenue before the lower appellate authority. It is the case of Revenue that CHA expenses incurred were not in accordance with notification No. 41\/2012-ST, dated 29.06.2012 as the CHA expenses were incurred before the place <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n cords, I find that the period of dispute is from January 2014 to October 2014. The appellant has claimed refund of service tax paid in respect of the services availed from their Custom House Agents. These services have been utilised for export of their goods viz; Black Galaxy Cutter Slabs, Black Galaxy Polished Granite Slabs. The Asst. Commissioner\/Refund Sanctioning Authority had sanctioned the amount. The whole dispute is in respect of the expenses incurred by the appellant beyond the place of removal, which in the present case is Krishnapttanam\/Chennai Port. It is the case of Revenue that the services provided by CHA were beyond the place of removal. I further find that the issue is no more res-integra as has been decided in various decisions of the Tribunal. Furthermore, the amendment to the statutory provisions, vide Finance Act, 2016, has finally put the dispute to rest. The relevant amendment is reproduced. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n be granted which has been denied, but which would not have been so denied had the amendment made by sub-section (1) been in force at all material times. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SUNRISE EXPORTS Versus CCT, Guntur GSTService Tax2018 (10) TMI 657 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 1-10-2018ST\/30775\/2018 – A\/31252\/201Service TaxMr. P.K. Choudhary, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant : Shri P. Venkat Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent \/AR ORDER PER: MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY 1. The facts of the case … Continue reading “SUNRISE EXPORTS Versus CCT, Guntur GST”<\/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-14440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14440","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=14440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“Statutory Provisions
\nFINANCE ACT, 2016
\n Amendment of notification is<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), an application for 2 the claim of rebate of service tax under sub-section (2) shall be made within the period of one month from the date of commencement of the Finance Act, 2016.
\nStatutory Provisions
\nFINANCE ACT, 2016
\nTHE TENTH SCHEDULE
\n(See Section 160)
\nNotification No.
\nAmendment
\nPeriod of effect of amendment
\n(1)
\n(2)
\n(3)
\nG.S.R. 519(E), dated the 29th June, 2012 [No.41\/2012- Service Tax, dated the 29th June,2012]
\nIn the said notification, in the Explanation,- (a) in clause (A), for subclause (i), the following sub-clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted, namely: “(i) in the case of excisable goods, taxable services that have been used beyond factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n