M\/s Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata North
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 862 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 24-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/75425\/2018 – FO\/76539\/2018
Service Tax
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Nand Kishore Kothari, CA for the Appellant (s)
\nShri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P.K. Choudhary
\nThe facts of the case in brief are that the appellant assessee is engaged in the business of trading of minerals, metals and energy products in India as well as export of such goods. For the purpose of export of goods, the appellant has availed various taxable services on payment of Service Tax. Claim for rebate of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,83,731\/- paid on the specified taxable services used for export of goods, during the period from 03.05.2014 to 12.07.2014, was submitted on 27.04.2015 under Notification No.41\/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. Show Cause Notice date<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n der, if it remains not paid by the party” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n under: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n turer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate of service tax paid on the taxable service used for export of goods to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture in Form A-1; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n export goods and the exporter is registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textiles, Form A-1 shall be submitted along with relevant invoice, bill or challan, or any other document for each specified service, in original, issued in the name of the exporter, evidencing payment for the specified service used for export of the said goods and the service tax paid thereon, certified in the manner specified in sub-clauses (A) and (B) : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ) that duly certified documents have been submitted evidencing the payment of service tax on the specified services ; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nd that in the Form A-1, details of shipping bill\/bill of export, details of goods exported, details of specified services used for export of goods, documents evidencing payment of service tax and total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate have to be furnished. Again, under column “total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate” as a percentage of FOB value in shipping bill has to be shown. Therefore, from the Form A-1 and its table it is clear that claim is not shipping bill wise but only details have to be furnished separately for each shipping bill. Nowhere in the Paragraph 3 of the Notification, it is stated that rebate claim has to be filed shipping bill wise. Further, the total amount of service tax paid which is claimed as rebate has to be shown in figure and as a percentage of total FOB value in shipping bill. This also shows that it is not shipping bill specific when more than one shipping bills are involved in a claim. Therefore, there is no requirement to<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata NorthService Tax2018 (12) TMI 862 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 24-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/75425\/2018 – FO\/76539\/2018Service TaxShri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Nand Kishore Kothari, CA for the Appellant (s) Shri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per … Continue reading “M\/s Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata North”<\/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-15544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15544","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=15544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order.
\n2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that since the Notification No. 41\/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 is a beneficial legislation, the intent to promote exports by granting exemption of the service tax paid on various services utilized by the exporter during the course of exports of the goods has to be construed liberally.
\n3. Ld. D.R. reiterates the orders of the lower appellate authority.
\n4. I find that the issue is no more resintegra in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal holding a consistent view. I also find that this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata vs. SSK Exports Ltd. & others in Final Order No.FO\/77622-77631\/2017 in Appeal Nos. ST\/76918, 76926, 76925, 76927, 76922, 76921\/16, 76961, 76924, 76919 & 76923\/16, wherein under similar circumstances, Revenue has contended that the refund claim for eac<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“6. The Department also observes that claim cannot be filed under Para 3 in the difference between the amount of rebate under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 is less than twenty per cent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 in terms of Para 1 (c) of the Notification and accordingly. Accordingly, the refund of service tax of Rs. 1,64,163\/- in respect of a few shipping bills under Para 3 is erroneous for the reason indicated above and the same needs to be recovered with interest.
\n7. The other grounds taken in the appeal are that rebate claim in respect of each shipping bill in an application is a separate claim and the requirement of certificate on the documents enclosed with Form A-1 in terms of clause (h) and clause (i) of Paragraph 3 of the Notification is required to be fulfilled with reference to each shipping bill. It is also contended that in respect of two shipping bills appearing in serial numbers 1 and 2, the re<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(d) the exporter who is not so registered under the provisions referred to in clause (c), shall before filing a claim for rebate of service tax, file a declaration in Form A-2, seeking allotment of service tax code, to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the registered office or the head office, as the case may be, of such exporter;
\n(e) the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after due verification, allot a serv<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(A) if the exporter is a proprietorship concern or partnership firm, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be self-certified by the exporter and if the exporter is a limited company, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be certified by the person authorised by the Board of Directors;
\n(B) the documents enclosed with the claim shall also contain a certificate from the exporter or the person authorised by the Board of Directors, to the effect that specified service to which the document pertain<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(iii) that rebate has not been already received on the shipping bills or bills of export on the basis of procedure prescribed in paragraph 2; and
\n(iv) that the rebate claimed is arithmetically accurate,
\nrefund the service tax paid on the specified service within a period of one month from the receipt of said claim :
\nProvided that where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has reason to believe that the claim, or the enclosed documents are not in order or that there is a reason to deny such rebate, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, take action, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder”.
\n8.1 From the bare reading of the Notification, it is clear that rebate may be claimed on the service tax actually paid on any specified service used for e<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n