Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)M/S Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. M/S ... vs Cce, Jaipur on 4 April, 2001
The said decision squarely covers the issue in the present case the
facts being similar. Revenue placed reliance on the decision
rendered by CESTAT in Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R.410 (Tri-Del).
The refund claim therein was denied as the appellants had availed
drawback also in respect of goods exported by them. Facts being
different the said case is distinguished from the case in hand.
Commissioner Of Sevice Tax, Ahmedabad vs M/S. Adani Enterprise Ltd. on 9 January, 2015
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgment in C.M.A.No.690 of 2019 (The Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise -Vs- M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd) dated 28.01.2020
"8.The above clearification throws light on difficulties faced by
exporters to produce documents in accordance with Section
65(105)(zn) as there is no procedure of issuing permission letters
or authorization to such service providers. The Board in its circular
dated 12-3-2009 has clarified that granting refund does not require
the verification of registration of service provider and refund can be
granted if otherwise in order. The implication of these two
clarifications read together, along with the amendment brought
forth in the definition of port services, in our view, is that the
exporter should not be unduly burdened with a condition to
establish that the service provider was registered under port
services. The learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on
the judgment in Commissioner Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd., 2014
(35) S.T.R.741 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has
considered the very same issue and held in favour of the assessee.
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 93 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
1