Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (10) TMI 1153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of 2018, 88177 of 2018 - A/86900-86901/2019 - Dated:- 24-10-2019 - HON BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S.R. Nair, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.b. Mane, Asst. Commissioner Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: AJAY SHARMA These two Appeals have been filed assailing the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner Central Tax, Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai in Order-in- Appeal No. MKK/423-426/RGD APP/2017-18. 2. The issue involved is whether the Appellant, a SEZ unit, is entitled for refund of service tax paid by them on input services used for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9 dated 22.2.2019 and find that those appeals were allowed in favour of appellant with consequential benefit of refund. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are extracted as under:- 5. The fact is not under dispute that during the relevant period, the appellant had operated its unit located within SEZ. As a unit under SEZ, the appellant was governed under the Notification No. 17/2011- S.T. dated 01.03.2011 for procuring the input services without payment of service tax and also for claiming of refund of service tax, where ever such tax has been paid on the specified services received for various operations in SEZ. In this case, the appellant had opted for payment of service tax on the input services and thereafte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gned orders, I do not find that the authorities below have specifically alleged regarding non-compliance of the said conditions by the appellant. Since the appellant had submitted the information as prescribed under Table (B), denial of refund benefit on the alleged ground of non-submission of documents cannot also be sustained. 5.3 I find that the refund claim has been denied by the original authority on the ground that the said application was filed by the appellant beyond the period of one year from the date of payment made to the vendors. With regard to the time limit for filing the refund application, the Notification dated 01.03.2011 at para 3(e) provides that claim for refund shall be filed within one year from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates