New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 1335 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (12) TMI 1335 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Restoration of appeal - time bar - Held that: - the delay in filing the appeal before learned Commissioner (A) was not intentional and deliberate and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal condoned before the learned Commissioner (A) and impugned order set aside - Commissioner (A) directed to decide the appeal on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal restored - delay condoned - decided in favor of appellant. - S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sions of marketing support services to its group companies located outside India and are rendering Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and accordingly, has obtained service tax registration under the said taxable service. During the period January 2010 to March 2010, the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions for the taxable category of BAS to qualify as export as per the provisions of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and thereafter exported the services without payment of service tax by virtue o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

show-cause notice dated 23.3.2011 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim. Thereafter after hearing the appellant vide order dated 23.3.2011 the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund primarily on the ground that the appellant has failed to fulfil the obligations laid down in Export of Services Rules. The Order-in-Original was received by mail section of the appellant on 14.12.2011 which was inadvertently sent to a different division instead of Finance Division which handles the tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly rejected the appeal merely on the ground of delay and has wrongly refused to condone the delay which was within condonable limit. He further submitted that the delay of 88 days was not deliberate and intentional but it was caused because the Order-in-Original was sent inadvertently to different division 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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