9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; (b) That refund claim for Rs. 21,451/- has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit as per notification No. 9/2009 dt. 3.3.2009. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is SEZ developers. They availed certain services and paid service tax thereon. As the services were used for authorized operations in the SEZ. Therefore, they filed refund of service tax paid by them. The said refund claims were rejected on the ground that as per Notification No. 15/2009-ST dt. 20.5.2009, if the services are wholly consumed in the SEZ, the same are exempted from payment of service tax. Therefore, appellants are not entitled to take refund of service tax paid by them as service is fully exempted. It is further held that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intention of legislation was that if any service tax has been paid by unit which was not required to pay service tax does not mean is not is entitled for refund claim. The intention of the legislature is that the person providing services is not required to pay service tax. Therefore, the Revenue has misinterpreted the notification No. 15/2009 ibid to deny the refund claim. The same issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Commr of Ex. & S.T. (LTU), Mumbai reported in 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri.) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: "6.2 Coming to the next question, whether in respect of the services which were wholly consumed and which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is eligible for refund under Section 11B, then the same cannot be denied on the ground that the claim was made under Notification No. 09/2009-ST. In this case, there is no dispute that the services were provided in relation to the authorized operations of the appellant within the SEZ. From the records it is seen that the appellant has filed the refund claim within the time period provided for in Section 11B and the appellant has borne the incidence of taxation." Therefore, I hold that appellants are entitled for refund claim. 7. Further, I find that the refund claim of Rs. 21,451/- has been denied to the appellant as time bar. I find that similar issue came up befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
