9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarter October-December 2016 being the Service Tax paid towards specified services received by them for authorized operations in the SEZ as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.7.2013. On verification of the claim, it was observed that: i) The claim is time barred since as per Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 the claim should have been filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of Service Tax was made by such developer of SEZ unit to the registered service provider. Thus, all payment of Service Tax with respect to input services made during October and November 2016 as corroborated from bank statements are hit by time bar. ii) MSEZ has declared in the claim that the refund of Service Tax claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns in Para 3(III)(a) of the Notification has not challenged by the Revenue and has become final. He also submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) differed with the decision of the Commissioner, Mysore who sanctioned the refund vide OIA No. MLR-EXCUS-000-APP-GVK-17/18-19 dated 29.06.2018 on similar issue. He further submitted that the appellant do not have any DTA unit and instead; they are making supply to a DTA unit and the impugned order has not considered the distinction between operating out of a DTA unit and making a supply to a company/entity located in DTA unit. The impugned order clearly records the fact of supplying water and repair services to M/s Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd., which is a separate legal ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB wherein it is held that time limit should be considered from the end of the quarter. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that in the present case, the refund is filed under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 and therefore, the refund will be governed by the conditions contained in the said Notification and the said Notification has to be interpreted strictly. He further submitted that as per the said Notification, the appellants are not entitle to the refund, part of which is time barred. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case refund for the quart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable in law and therefore the findings of the impugned order is set aside. Further, with regard to the refund of Rs. 49,711 being barred by limitation, I find that the combined reading of Para 3(III)(e) and 3(III)(f) of the Notification clearly shows that the refund claim were within time limit and further the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech relied upon by the appellant cited supra is also applicable. Therefore, I hold that denial of refund on time barred is also not sustainable. 7. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order in its entirety is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
