TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) observed in the impugned order that there was no application seeking extension of time for filing refund and therefore the claim is not wrongly held to be hit by time bar. Having said so, we would like to observe that the amount involved in this case is paltry and the revenue has stated that the appellant also has a factory where they claim refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST and were following similar timeline in this case also. In these circumstances we are of the view that given the fact that there is a provision for condoning the delay in the notification No. 9/2009-ST and the delay was not unreasonable or deliberate, the delay deserved to be condoned and we condone the same. It is seen th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected as claim filed late. (iii) Reduced payment against billed amount. 2. The Ld. Consultant for the appellant has pleaded that as far as grounds No. (i) and (ii) are concerned in the appellants own case vide CESTAT order No. ST-A/53881-53883/2015 dated 26.11.2015, the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant. As regards, the reduced payment, the Ld. Consultant stated that payment was reduced only to the extent of TDS which was deducted and deposited in the Government account on behalf of the service provider and therefore in effect the entire amount was paid to the services recipient . 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand stated that no evidence of TDS having been deposited by the appellant has been submitted and als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided a facilitative regime whereby a developer or units of SEZ, as recipients of taxable service are enabled the facility of claiming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that given the fact that there is a provision for condoning the delay in the notification No. 9/2009-ST and the delay was not unreasonable or deliberate, the delay deserved to be condoned and we condone the same. 7. As regards the rejection of refund proportionately on account of deduction from the invoice in the name of TDS, we would like to state that TDS is deducted and deposited on behalf of the service provider and therefore the amount of TDS deducted has to be treated as the payment made for the service and deposited with the Govt. on behalf of the service provider. It is seen that the lower authority observed that the evidence of having deposited the TDS in the Government account was not submitted and therefore he did not al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
