Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Markers Mart And Prince Exports Versus C.C.E & S. Tax., Jaipur II

2016 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 - Decision in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd vs. C.S.T. - [2013 (7) TMI 703 - CEST .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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.R.) ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: These appeals are filed against rejection of ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or 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 in relation to the authorised operations in SEZ as approved by the approva .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 (Tri - Ahmedabad) and was found to be untenable. As regards the time-bar, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. 9/2009 and 15/2009 merely contour the process by which the benefit of exemption/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version