Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (11) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts available on record clearly established that the claim was not for the period for which the refund was claimed. The goods exported vide the said Shipping bills, were not stored/warehoused during the period of 16.9.2011 to 15.10.2011, and were in fact exported well before that period is a finding of fact, which does not raise any question of law to be considered by the Court - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 312 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : A. P. Mathur For the Respondent : B. K. Singh Raghuvanshi ORDER 1. We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eriod of 16.09.2011 to 15.10.2011) issued by M/s Rishi Shipping, Kutch (Guj) against services of Storage Warehousing availed in respect of goods exported vide Shipping Bill No.5252156 dated 02.09.2011 (Qty of goods involved 330 MT). The LEO was granted by the Customs Officer on said shipping bills on 05.09.2011. Since the goods exported vide the said Shipping were not stored/warehoused in the warehouse during the period of 16.09.2011 to 15.10.2011, as the same were exported well before that period, the issue of availing services of Storage and warehousing as claimed by the respondent is not correct. Thus, the claim of refund of service tax paid on the services of Storage Warehousing availed against the export of goods, vide Shipping Bil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appeals). The findings recorded by the CESTAT are quoted as below:- "5.After hearing both sides I find that in the refund in question the invoice submitted along with the refund claim was RS/GDN/ST/1783/11-12 dated 17.09.2011 which pertains to period 16.08.2011 to 15.09.2011 whereas Shipping Bill No.4642020 dated 21.07.2011 submitted by them does not cover period of refund. Similarly Shipping Bill dated 02.09.2011 was submitted for invoice RS/GDN/ST/1784/11-12 dated 17.09.2011 pertaining to period 16.09.2011 to 15.10.2011. In view of these facts I do not find any infirmity in the findings of Commissioner (Appeal). Accordingly I uphold order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and reject the appeal." 4. Shri A.P. Mathur submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates