Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1103 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (11) TMI 1103 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - SEZ - Refund claim - Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service - Chartered Accountants Service - Held that: - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed that during the personal hearing, the assessee produced the list of services approved by the Development Commissioner and in the amended list of services, Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service and Chartered Accountants Service are added to the certified list of services in Annexure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/2638/2011-SM - Final Order No. 21205 / 2016 - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Parashiva Murthy, A.R. For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 15.7.2011 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim rejected by the original autho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Industry, Govt. of India, for setting up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Baikampady near Mangalore and are entitled to various duty benefits under SEZ Act 2005 and SEZ Rules 2006. The assessee filed a refund application dated 22.7.2010 for refund of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 9,54,353/- in terms of Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 20.5.2009. On scrutiny of the refund claim, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund on Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service and Chartered Account .....

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 assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 15.7.2011allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. I have heard the learned A.R. for the appellant and perused the material on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee. 4. The learned A.R. has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed the refund claim on Sci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under : 7. From the above, it appears to me that Government s intention is clear that the SEZ units should either not require to pay or if paid they are eligible for refund. Mere not mentioning the services in Annexure II & III is only a technical one which should not debar the substantial benefit. In this case, it is clear that the appellant who had availed the services inside the SEZ were not liable to pay Service Tax and the appellant who had availed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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