Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 309 (Tri. - Del.) - Refund - specified services requires for authorised operation in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) - period of limitation - Notification No. 9/2009 ST, dated 03.03.2009. - The appellant has contended that the ground of rejection namely non-submission of list of authorised operations - Held that:- Refund cannot be denied merely for procedural lapse - if otherwise assessee is eligible to get refund, it should be allowed - Dec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quantum of delay, we are of the view that the delay not being unreasonable deserved o be condoned in terms of the aforesaid para 2(f) of Notification No.9/2009-ST. - Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal Nos.2556, 2557, 2682 of 2012 - Final Order No . 53881 - 53883/2015 - Dated:- 26-11-2015 - MR. JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Gupta, Commissioner( A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Committee is primary and foremost condition for sanction of refund claim for the want of which the primary adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund claim in terms of Notification No. 9/2009 ST. The refund of ₹ 45,052/- was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground (i) part of the refund ₹ 3,584/- was time-barred as the refund claim was filed after expiry of six months from the date of making actual payment of service tax and (ii) list of specified services required .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation for refund in terms of para 2 (g) (i) of Notification No. 9/2009 - ST and part of the claim (Rs.37,168/-) was also rejected on the ground that the refund claim was filed more than 6 months after the date of making payment of service tax and the proof of payment of service tax was not given. 3. The appellant has contended that the ground of rejection namely non-submission of list of authorised operations was considered by CESTAT in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (32) STR 543 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

our of the asessees in the case of Intas Pharma (supra) wherein it was held that under : 11. On true and fair construction of Notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 issued under Section 93(1) of the Act, considered in the light of the overarching provisions of Sections 7 and 26(e) of the 2005 Act, the conclusion appears compelling that neither Notification 9/2009 nor 15/2009 disentitle immunity to Service Tax enjoined by the provisions of the 2005 Act. It therefore appears that Notification Nos. 9/200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version