the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC   Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC   Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI     FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC      Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78    Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court    Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic  Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85  Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7    Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6    Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35  per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details   Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30    Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31    Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT    merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC  ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT    HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it  falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC    Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82   Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB       
Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

CIRCULAR No. 112/06/2009-Service Tax

Dated: March 12, 2009

Sub:- Filing of claim for refund of service tax paid under notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6/10/2007 – reg.

Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6/10/2007 allows refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods. To resolve the procedural difficulties arising in implementation of this refund scheme the Board has earlier issued circulars No. 101/4/2008-ST, dated 12.5.2008 and No. 106/9/2008-ST dated 11.12.2008.

2. The Board has received further references from field formations and trade seeking clarification on other procedural issues. These issues and the clarification are discussed in the following Table.

TABLE

S. No.

Issue Raised

Clarification

I

Notification No. 41/07-ST has been amended by notification Nos. 32/2008-ST, dated 18.11.2008 and 33/2008-ST, dated 7.12.2008 to (i) extend the limitation period from 60 days from the end of quarter to six month; (ii) to omit the condition of nonavailment of drawback.

Whether, in view of amended conditions, refund for the quarter Mar-Jun 08 would be allowed to be filed till Dec 08?

It is clarified that consequent upon revision of limitation period, any refund claim that is filed within such revised limitation period would be admissible if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, refund claims of service tax on specified taxable services used for exports of goods made in the quarter Mar-Jun 08 could be filed till 31 st Dec 08.

II

The bank deducts certain commissions from the export remittance in lieu of service provided by them. Refund is not allowed on such deduction. Refund should be allowed on the gross remittances.

Refund is admissible on the basis of gross amount received for the exports and deductions made by the banks from export remittances, in lieu of services provided by bank, should not be deducted while granting refund.

III

For exporters exporting to a customer regularly, the foreign exchange remittance certificates (FIRC) are made on running account basis by the banks. Therefore, it is often not possible to show the linkage between the export invoice and the remittance. This has resulted in denial of refund.

Further in case where payments are received by cheque, banks do not issue FIRC and refunds are denied.

In such cases where FIRCs are issued on consolidated basis, the exporters should submit self-certified statement alongwith FIRC showing the details of export in respect of which the FIRC pertains.

Refunds should be allowed on such certified statements.

However, exporters should maintain a register showing running account which should be reconciled between the export and the remittance periodically.

In cases where banks do not issue FIRC for the reason that payments are received by cheque, refund may be allowed on the basis of duly certified bank statement.

IV

Whether the limitation period of six month would be counted from the date of exports or from the date of receipt of remittances?

It is clearly prescribed in the notification that limitation period of six month is to be computed from the date of exports.

V

Whether refund would be admissible on specified taxable service received prior to the date it is notified in the said notification, if such services are used in relation to goods which are exported subsequent to the date on which such taxable services are notified under notification No. 41/2007-ST.

Being prospective in nature refund is not admissible on such services received prior to the date they are notified in the said notification, even if the goods, in relation to which these services are used, are exported after the date when such services are notified under notification No. 41/2007-ST.

VI

Authorities granting refund are insisting on original documents such as invoice, BL, SB, BRC etc. Such documents are required under the law to be kept in the Head office for audit. Refunds are denied on this ground.

Normally certified copy of the documents should be accepted.

Only in case of in-depth enquiry original documents can be verified.

VII

The service provider providing services to the exporter provides various services. But he has registration of only one service. The refund is being denied on the grounds that the taxable services that are not covered under the registration are not eligible for such refunds.

Notification No. 41/2007 ST provides exemption by way of refund from specified taxable services used for export of goods. Granting refund to exporters, on taxable services that he receives and uses for export do not require verification of registration certificate of the supplier of service. Therefore, refund should be granted in such cases, if otherwise in order. The procedural violations by the service provider need to be dealt separately, independent of the process of refund.

VIII

Whether refunds under notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6.10.2007 would be admissible for the quarter July-Sep 2007.

The notification No.41/2007-ST exempts service tax on specified taxable services used for export of goods. This exemption is operated through the route of refund. Being prospective in nature, refund could only be sanctioned on taxable services provided on or after the date they are notified in the said notification, i.e., 6.10.2007.

3. The pending refund claims may be decided accordingly. It is once again reiterated that refund claims be sanctioned expeditiously within the time prescribed by the Board. Any difficulty faced in processing of refund claims under aforesaid notification may be immediately brought to the notice of the undersigned

F.No.137/84/2008-CX.4

(Gautam Bhattachraya )
Commissioner (ST)

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments