Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 446 - AT - Service TaxService tax refund - SEZ unit - Period of limitation - list of specified services required for authorized operation in unit duly approved by the approval committee was not submitted - No evidence of depositing the reduced payment to the extent of TDS against billed amount in the Government account - Held that:- as far as non-submission of list of specified services duly approved by the approval committee is concerned, the issue is squarely covered vide judgment of CESTAT in the case of Markers Mart And Prince Exports Versus C.C.E & S. Tax., Jaipur II [2016 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Regarding the delay, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed in the impugned order that there was no application seeking extension of time for filing refund and therefore the claim is not wrongly held to be hit by time bar. Having said so, we would like to observe that the amount involved in this case is paltry and the revenue has stated that the appellant also has a factory where they claim refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST and were following similar timeline in this case also. In these circumstances we are of the view that given the fact that there is a provision for condoning the delay in the notification No. 9/2009-ST and the delay was not unreasonable or deliberate, the delay deserved to be condoned and we condone the same. It is seen that the lower authority observed that the evidence of having deposited the TDS in the Government account was not submitted and therefore he did not allow the refund of service tax component pertaining to the TDS. While we do not find anything seriously unreasonable in the reasoning of the lower authority having regard to the fact that the amount involved on this account is paltry, the revenue has asserted that the TDS has actually been deposited in the Government account, the service provider has not disputed that fact and further, the service tax sought to refunded has actually been paid and the provisions of SEZ Act are overacting, we are of the view that reduction of refund amount pertaining to the amount deducted on account of TDS is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant
|