9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Gupta, Commissioner( A.R.) ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: These appeals are filed against rejection of refund claims of Rs. 51,298/- and Rs. 45,052/- in case of Makers Mart and Rs. 62,109/- in case of Prince Exports. The refund claims were filed in terms of Notification No. 9/2009 ST, dated 03.03.2009. 2. Rejection of the refund of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application for refund in terms of para 2 (g) (i) of Notification No. 9/2009ST which was not submitted. As regards the refund of Rs. 62,109/-, it was rejected on the ground of non-submission of list of specified services required in relation to the authorised operations in SEZ as approved by the Approval Committee which was required to be submitted along with the application for refund in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the approved list of authorised operations which is a condition in notification No. 9/2009 - ST , we find that the issue has been discussed and analysed and settled in favour of the asessees in the case of Intas Pharma (supra) wherein it was held that under : 11. On true and fair construction of Notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 issued under Section 93(1) of the Act, considered in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These 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, inadver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or the precursors and excise as the case may be shall permit from the date of actual payment of service tax by such developer or unit to service provider. 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. 6. In view of the foregoing, we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
