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 →

M/s Suzlon Wind International Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) , Mangalore

2016 (6) TMI 238 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Period of limitation - Denial of refund claim - banking services received for their authorized operations in SEZ - refund is allowed in terms of Notification No 9/2009 ST as amended - whether a separate application is required to be filed along with refund for seeking extension of time for filing the refund application or the ground for extension of stay along with the refund application is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the application. - Held that:- on the basis of appellant's 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

ld produce before the adjudicating authority all the documentary evidence which is in his possession to claim the said refund. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - ST/2614/2011, ST/2615/2011 - Final Order No. 20318-20319/2016 - Dated:- 9-5-2016 - Shri S.S.Garg, Judical Member For the Appellant : Mr Venugopal, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Saxena, A.R. ORDER The present appeals are directed against order-in-appeal dated 31.05.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the learned Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is provided for the taxable services provided in relation to authorized operations in the SEZ and received by the SEZ developer or unit whether or not the said services are provided inside the SEZ. The appellant being an SEZ unit sought such exemption by way of refund for the period March 2009 to June 2009 by filing a refund application dated 7.4.2010 and for the period September 2009 by filing a refund application dated 27.4.2010 pertaining to the taxable services i.e. banking services received .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the order dated 4.8.2010 before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mangalore which was disposed of vide order-in-appeal dated 31.5.2011 upholding the order-in-original by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is ex facie bad in law as the same has been passed in a manner contrary to the entire spirit of Notification 9/2009-ST. He further submitted that the time limit of six months stipu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

merit and cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that Notification No 9/2009 ST does not state that any extension for filing of the refund claim beyond the stipulated period of six months should be made prior to filing of the refund application when the same could not be filed within the stipulated period of six months. He further submitted that the appellant requested for condoning the delay in their refund application itself and did not move separate application as he was not aware that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that delay in filing the refund claim was beyond the control of the appellant inasmuch as the services covered in the subject claim are provided by the banking companies who have not issued any bills/invoices, challans while providing the services and also while receiving the services appellants were not well versed with the provisions of this new notification as to documentary requirements. The appellants also relied upo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as a discretion of the adjudicating authority to grant extension or not to grant extension depending upon whether the appellant was able to satisfy the adjudicating authority by providing sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether a separate application is required to be filed along with refund for seeking extension of time for filing the refund applica .....

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