9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that in one case there is a delay of 2 days because of the intervening Saturday and Sunday and the claim was filed on Monday. Further the Assistant/Deputy commissioner had power to condone the delay in terms of para 2 (f) of notification No. 9/2009 - ST - Held that:- Having regard to the nature of refunds and quantum of delay, we are of the view that the delay not being unreasonable deserved o be condoned in terms of the aforesaid para 2(f) of Notification No.9/2009-ST. Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal Nos.2556, 2557, 2682 of 2012 - Final Order No . 53881 - 53883/2015 - Dated:- 26-11-2015 - MR. JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SEZ as approved by the Approval Committee which was required to be submitted along with the application for refund in terms of para 2 (g) (i) of Notification No. 9/2009 - ST and part of the claim (Rs.37,168/-) was also rejected on the ground that the refund claim was filed more than 6 months after the date of making payment of service tax and the proof of payment of service tax was not given. 3. The appellant has contended that the ground of rejection namely non-submission of list of authorised operations was considered by CESTAT in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd vs. C.S.T. - 2013 (32) STR 543 (Tri - Ahmedabad) and was found to be untenable. As regards the time-bar, the appellant stated that Commissioner (Appeals) was fully empowered to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/sub-paragraph c of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 5. As regards the issue of time-bar the appellant has contended that in one case there is a delay of 2 days because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
