Vaibhav Global Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 341 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 4-12-2018
Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST\/52143, 52144 & 52145\/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53352-53354\/2018
Service Tax
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal & Mr. MB Maheshwari, Advocates
\nPresent for the Respondent: Mr. P.R. Gupta, DR
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nThree of the above mentioned Appeals are disposed of vide this Order as the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a common Order with respect to three Show Cause Notices in three of these Appeals. Common Order dated 16.02.2018 has been challenged before this Tribunal.
\n2. Relevant facts for the purpose are:
\nThe appellant herein is engaged in manufacturing and export of gems and jewellery. He had filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 and Notification No. 27\/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 in respect of the cenvat credit <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n are as follows:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ted goods. Thus, the goods of the appellants may be excluded from the scope of exempted goods and may be made eligible to the refund claim under Rule 5 read with Rule 7 of CCr, 2004. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tantly, any manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediary product for export is entitled for credit subject to above conditions. The appellant in the present case admittedly is engaged in clearing excisable goods however the controversy is whether the goods i.e. gems and jewellery were fully exempted or not. The appellant has drawn attention to the Ministry of Law advice dated 29.10.1974 as circulated vide CBEC Circular No. 278\/112\/96-CX dated 11.12.1996 which reads as follows:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Vaibhav Global Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, JaipurService Tax2018 (12) TMI 341 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 4-12-2018Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST\/52143, 52144 & 52145\/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53352-53354\/2018Service TaxMRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal & Mr. MB Maheshwari, Advocates Present for … Continue reading “Vaibhav Global Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur”<\/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-15406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15406","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=15406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAppeal No.
\nSCN
\nPeriod
\nRefund amount & date
\nEx-parte OIO No.\/ Date
\nCommon OIA No.\/ Date
\nST\/52143\/2018
\nC.No. V(71)R-5\/Ref\/246\/2015\/5603 dated 10.12.2015
\nJuly 2014 to September 2014
\nRs.5,14,709\/- 30.09.2015
\n380\/Ref.\/2015 dated 31.12.2015
\n37 to 39 (NG) ST\/JPR\/2018 dated 16.02.2018
\nST\/52144\/2018
\nC.No. V(71)R-5\/Ref\/261\/2015\/5601 dated 10.12.2015
\nOctober 2014 to December 2014
\nRs.4,97,807\/-
\n08\/Ref.\/2016 dated 05.01.2016
\n37 to 39 (NG) ST\/JPR\/2018 dated 16.02.2018
\nST\/52145\/2018
\nC.No. V(71)R-5\/Ref\/307\/2015\/5827 dated 21.12.2015
\nJanuary 2015 to March 2015
\nRs.1,11,374\/-
\n09\/Ref.\/2016 dated 11.01.2016
\n37 to 39 (NG) ST\/JPR\/2018 dated 16.02.2018
\n3. I have heard Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.R. Gupta, Ld. DR for the Department.
\n4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the refund claim was filed of accumulated cenvat on inputs\/ input services used for export under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27 d<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4.2 Ld. Counsel has also mentioned that as per the definition of exempted goods in Rule 2(d) of CCR, 2004 those goods which are under entry no. 67 and 128 of Notification No. 12 dated 17.03.2012 (as has been relied upon by the Commissioner(Appeals) by the Adjudicating Authorities below) but the goods of the appellant fall under none of those categories for this reason also the goods cannot be held as exempted goods and the claim cannot be rejected in accordance thereof.
\nThe Order under challenge is therefore prayed to be set aside; Appeal is prayed to be allowed.
\n5. Ld. DR on the other hand has justified the order and prayed for the dismissal of Appeal.
\n6. After hearing both the parities my observations and opinion is as follows:-
\nThe appellant had filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nUnder Central Excise, “exemption” means exemption by Notification No. under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 thus goods exported under bonds are not exempted from duty. A conjoint reading of this Circular with the above requirements of Rule 5 makes it clear that a manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking which is exported without payment of service tax shall not be an exempted goods and as such s<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n