Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Mangalore SEZ Ltd.

2016 (11) TMI 1103 - CESTAT BANGALORE

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 III and therefore, the learned Commissioner (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

peals) - 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 authority on Scientific or Technical Consultancy Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cial 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 Accountants Service as the same was not found in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner (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 Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the services inside the SEZ were not liable 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

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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