TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on industrial plot from so much of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66B of the said Act, as is leviable on the one time upfront amount payable for such lease. Vide Section 104 (1), exemption was provided from said services for the period from 01.06.2007 to 21.09.2016 and it was provided that the refund claim should be filed within a period of six months from the date from which Finance Act, 2017 is promulgated and come into force. In the present case, the appellant filed the refund claim within time and the only ground for which the refund was rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority is that the appellant did not produce sufficient documents in the form of invoices/bills showing that they have p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant filed a refund claim of ₹ 2,54,158/- on 26.09.2017 as per Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 before the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad. As per Notification No.41/2016 dated 22.09.2016 taxable services (like premium, salami, cost, price, development charges etc) provided by the State Government or KINFRA by way of providing long term lease exceeding 30 years or more is exempt from service tax and the said exemption was available from the period from 01.06.2007 to 21.09.2016; along with refund claim, the appellant filed all the requisite documents. Thereafter, a SCN dated 28.11.2017 issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground of non-submission of necessary documents. After following the due pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that Section 104 of the Finance Act itself declares that there will not be any levy or collection of tax, its impact cannot be nullified or controlled or limited by another provision contained in the very same enactment i.e. Section 83 of the Finance Act. For this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of S.T. Chennai reported in 2020 (38) GSTL 314 (Mad.). He further submitted that though Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable in the present case but assuming for the sake of argument that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable even then the appellant has complied with fully or substantially with the requirements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016 and it was provided that the refund claim should be filed within a period of six months from the date from which Finance Act, 2017 is promulgated and come into force. Further, I find that in the present case, the appellant filed the refund claim within time and the only ground for which the refund was rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority is that the appellant did not produce sufficient documents in the form of invoices/bills showing that they have paid the service tax to KINFRA. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed various invoices/bills issued by KINFRA showing the payment of service tax by the appellant for which the refund claim has been filed by the appellant. Further, I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
