9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 47 - AT - Service TaxStay of refund - Refund of service tax - transport of export goods through national waterway, inland water and coastal shipping under (zzzzl) was inserted in notification 17/2009-ST vide notification 40/09-ST dated 30.09.2009. - Held that - Undisputedly, the period involved in this case is August - September, 2009, the impugned services was inserted in the Notification 17/2009 vide Notification 40/2009 with effect from 30.09.2009 is also not in dispute. In these circumstances, I find that the notification would not be available to the applicant for grant of refund of service tax. Thus, revenue has been able to make out a case for staying the operation of the ld. Commissioner(Appeal) s order and the same is stayed - Stay on refund granted.
Issues:
1. Stay of operation of Commissioner (Appeals) order for refund claim under Notification 17/2009. 2. Interpretation of Notification 17/2009 and its applicability to the refund claim. 3. Effect of insertion of new service in Notification 17/2009 on the refund claim period. Analysis: Issue 1: The Revenue filed an application for stay of the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing the processing and sanctioning of the refund claim under Notification 17/2009. The Commissioner's order set aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision and instructed processing the refund claim as per law. Issue 2: The respondent sought a refund of service tax under Notification 17/2009 for services used in export. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the claim, citing specific criteria for refund eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, ordering the processing of the claim in accordance with the law. Issue 3: The Revenue argued that the service in question was included in Notification 17/2009 through a subsequent notification dated 30.09.2009, post the period for which the refund was claimed. Consequently, the benefit of the notification was deemed unavailable to the respondent. The Tribunal concurred, noting the non-availability of the notification for the refund claim period, thus granting the stay petition. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, emphasizing the inapplicability of the notification to the refund claim period due to the subsequent inclusion of the service. This decision aligned with the Revenue's argument, supporting the stay of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
|
