Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Makers Mart Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-II

2016 (6) TMI 446 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Service tax refund - SEZ unit - Period of limitation - list of specified services required for authorized operation in unit duly approved by the approval committee was not submitted - No evidence of depositing the reduced payment to the extent of TDS against billed amount in the Government account - Held that:- as far as non-submission of list of specified services duly approved by the approval committee is concerned, the issue is squarely covered vide judgment of CESTAT in the case of Markers M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 that the lower authority observed that the evidence of having deposited the TDS in the Government account was not submitte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act are overacting, we are of the view that reduction of refund amount pertaining to the amount deducted on account of TDS is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/2555/2012-[DB] - Final Order No. 52061 /2016 - Dated:- 2-6-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. R. K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. O. P. Agarwal (Consultant) For the Respondent : Mrs. Suchitra Shrma, (DR) ORDER PER R. K. SINGH: Appeal is filed against order-in- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed, we find that the issue is squarely covered vide judgment of CESTAT cited in Para 2 above. Para 4 said of the judgment is reproduced below: 4. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. As regards the ground of non-submission of the approved list of authorised operations which is a condition in notification No. 9/2009 ST , we find that the issue has been discussed and analysed and settled in favour of the asessees in the case of Intas Pharma (supra) wherein it was held that under : .....

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 operationalised. Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 have provided 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 prescri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 6. Regarding the delay, we find that in the aforesaid order of CESTAT, the delay was only 2 days and that too occurred on account of the intervening Saturday and Sunday and therefore the CESTAT condoned the said delay. Thus, the reasoning of that order does not come to the rescue of the appellant in the present case where t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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