Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 541 - AT - Service TaxSEZ unit - Refund of Service Tax - Management or Business Consultant Service - period from July 2017 to September 2017 - claim was filed on 29/05/2018 - rejection refund claim has been filed beyond one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made by the claimants - introduction of CGST Act, 2017, by omitting Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, by virtue of Section 173 of the CGST Act - Applicability of 12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has given detailed reasons in their letter dt. 29.05.2018 filed along with the refund claim application wherein they have given specific reasons explaining the delay but the Assistant Commissioner did not consider those reasons and simply observed that they are not genuine. Further it is found that the Notification No.12/2013 itself gives him a discretion to condone the delay for bona fide reasons and in the present case, the reasons given by the appellant are very much genuine. Further in the appellants own case for the earlier period, the delay in filing the refund claim was condoned. In an identical case, the CESTAT, Hyderabad in the case of M/S WS INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL TAX [2019 (12) TMI 1091 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] has also condoned delay of approximately 3 years in filing the refund claim by relying upon the previous decisions of the Tribunal taking a liberal view in condoning the delay in case of SEZ. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim on time bar is not sustainable in law - Matter remanded back to the original authority for deciding the refund claim on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|