Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—²š˜€š˜š—®š˜ š—žš—¼š—¹š—øš—®š˜š—® š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—¦š—°š—µš—²š—ŗš—² š—³š—¼š—æ š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—½š—®š—¶š—± š—¼š—» š—˜š—øš—½š—¼š—æš˜ š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "No need for one-to-one co-relation of services to export goods for refund claims. Appeal allowed."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—”š—½š—½š—²š—¹š—¹š—®š—»š˜: M/s. S.K.Sarawagi Company Private Limited š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: The appellant sought a refund on service tax for export-related services, but the refund was denied due to the lack of one-to-one co-relation between services and export transactions under Notification No. 41/2007-ST.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that refunds could be granted based on a broader correlation between services and exports, as seen in previous cases like Jumbo Mining Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad. It noted that Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. simplified the process by allowing self-certification or CA certification, leading to the appeal's success.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s. S.K.Sarawagi Company Private Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 8 February 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling clarifies that strict co-relation between services and exports is not required for refund claims under the simplified refund scheme.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own