9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m are falling under overall categories of approved services, the refund claim should be considered for sanction. Adequate documentary support has been placed before us to support the claim of the appellant that they did discharge the service tax on the services received. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - when the original claim was filed in time, as recorded by the Original Authority, the same should be considered for verification and sanction - extended period not invoked. The matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for examining the refund claims for sanction - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeals Nos.50921 and 53067/2014 - ST/A/53804-53805/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 7-6-2017 - Shri S. K. Moh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two appeals. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claims have been rejected without due examination and without appreciating the details submitted by the appellant at the time of filing the claims. His submission can be summarized as below:- (a) The appellants are approved as a co-developers of SEZ project at LNG terminal of Cochin port. In terms of Section 2 (g) of SEZ Act, 2005, developer includes a co-developer. (b) The services received by the appellants are with reference to approved operations inside the SEZ. The nature of services, which are authorized to be utilized by the appellants, were duly approved by the Development Commissioner on 9.7.2009 and thereafter duly rectified by the Approval Committee on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants inadvertently did not include the service tax paid using cenvat credit in their claim and calculated only the cash payment. This error was corrected and revised calculation was submitted. All the amounts, which were subject to refund claim, were paid before the date of original claim filed by the appellant. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authority and submitted that it is for the appellant to establish that they did receive the approved services in relation to the operation by them as co-developers inside the SEZ. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. On careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the original order, we note that the claims were rejected on various gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is satisfied that the appellant have discharged service tax and the services received by them are falling under overall categories of approved services, the refund claim should be considered for sanction. 6. Regarding the observation of the Original Authority that the appellant have not paid service tax to the provider of service, we note that the said conclusion was drawn based on the wrong appreciation of facts and inapplicable provisions of terms of contract. Adequate documentary support has been placed before us to support the claim of the appellant that they did discharge the service tax on the services received. The observation of the Original Authority regarding adjustment of the PL service in the contract service, is relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
