9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und in respect of Input Services used in relation to the export of goods under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - It is obvious that the refund claim under Rule 5 is sanctioned only after ascertaining the admissibility of Cenvat Credit in respect of Input Service for which the refund is sought for. Therefore, the issue of admissibility of Input Service has been clearly examined by the refund sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L), MR. RAMESH NAIR Shri. Rahul Gajera, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. H. K. Jain Assistant Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involves is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of Service Tax for Outward Freight Charges i.e. Indian Customs Ports to foreign destination for transportation of export goods. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera, Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 173 (Tri.- Chan.) MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES LTD. vs CST-2015 (37) STR 639 MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT MGMT. PVT. LTD. vs CCGST-2018 (365) ELT 1158 (Tri.Mumbai) 2.1 He also submits that the majority of demand being under extended period is time barred as there is no suppression of fact, the appellant were filing ER2 returns. There is no specific column in such return for disclosi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original sanctioned the refund of Cenvat Credit in respect of Input Services including Outward Freight Charges. ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No R-248/Refund/13-14. Dated 29.11.2013. ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No R-90/Refund/14-15. Dated 23.06.2014. ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No R-271/Refund/14-15. Dated 06.12.2014. ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No R-350/Refund/14-15. Dated 20.01.2015. ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No R-112/Refund/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue cannot take two yard sticks, one for allowing the refund and other for allowing the Cenvat Credit. 5. I further observed that the appellant have been filing the refund claim periodically from 2013 onwards in respect of the Input Service which is the subject matter in this case. Moreover appellant had been filing ER2 returns regularly. Therefore there is no suppression of fact on the part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
