Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
R S Developers & Associates vs -Bbsr Commissionerate on 4 April, 2025 cites

The Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By ... vs Slovak India Trading Company Private ... on 7 July, 2006

The term "Total turnover" used in the above formula includes the sum total value of all excisable goods cleared during the relevant Page 8 of 11 Appeal No.: ST/75915/2022-SM period. It doesn't restrict the inclusion of value of the excisable goods exported, per se. Sub-rule (2) deals with a situation where duty drawback is allowed and further lays down that in such a situation, credit could not be refunded. Therefore, it is clear from the above that Rule 5 facilitates the refund of Cenvat credit not merely of the excisable goods exported and therefore to say that Rule 5 provides for refund of un-utilized Cenvat only in the cases of export of service is incorrect. Thus, I am of the view that accepting this interpretation of the Commissioner (Appeals) would lead to serious anomaly, which cannot be the intention of the legislation. Admittedly, the appellant has a huge credit which is now lying with the Revenue; the appellant has surrendered its Service Tax Registration and they have also paid the service tax liability as on the last date of their business. The law cannot, therefore, lead to a situation where a bonafide tax payer's amount could be denied and withheld, for no fault of his. Further, in such a situation a bonafide assessee cannot be left remediless with his/its money in the form of credit struck with the Government. My view as above is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which decision has been followed by various judicial fora across the nation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 57 - Full Document
1   2 Next