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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Versus M/s. SE Composite Ltd.

2016 (11) TMI 588 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Rejection of Refund claim - time bar - SEZ unit - banking and other financial services - limitation of time to file the refund claim of service tax under Notification No.09/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009 - Held that: - The discretionary powers given to the Assistant Commissioner has to be exercised by application of mind to the facts of the case. When the delay in filing the claim is sought to be condoned by the claimant, the competent Officer (here Assistant Commissioner) has to examine and decide whet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cided against appellant. - ST/2683/2012-SM - Final Order No. 21128 / 2016 - Dated:- 10-11-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Mohd. Yousuf, AR For the Appellant Shri R. Muralidharan, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby he has allowed the assessee s appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department has filed th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2.2011 under Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009. They had also requested to condone the delay in filing refund claim on the ground that supporting documents were not available with them for filing the claim within the time limit. The original authority vide Order-in-Original No.20/2011(R) AC dated 28.6.2011 had rejected the refund claim as time barred by taking recourse to para 2(f) of Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reason for delay in filing the refund claim. Further, the assessee in support of his submission relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujara Singh and Ors reported in 2010-TIOL-46-SC-LMT and also on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Rallis India Ltd.: 2006 (202) E.L.T. 845. Thereafter the learned Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he developer or a unit of SEZ and in the present case, the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed period under the said Notification and therefore, the same was rightly rejected. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order. 6. I have gone through the impugned order and it is necessary to reproduce the observations of the learned Commissioner (A) in para 4 and 5, which are reproduced herein below: 4. I have carefully gone through the records of 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

 

 

 

 

 

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