9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be correlated with the export of services of the appellant - Before the Tribunal also they are unable to correlate the said services rendered with export services from the appellant's premises - refund cannot be allowed. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/30980/2017-SM - A/30001/2018 - Dated:- 16-1-2018 - M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Rep - for the Appellant Mr. Dass A.R. - for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is directed against Order-in-appeal No.HYD-EXCUS-004-APP-0075-17-18-ST dated 29.05.2017. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund claim of approximate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Tribunal in the case of Nhava Sheva Intl. Container Terminal (P). Ltd. Versus CCE Raigad - 509 (Tri Mumbai). 5.1 As regards the refund of approximately ₹ 1,05,000/- it is his submission that in order to conduct field trials which is mandated as per the law of the law, they had taken the land on lease from National Diary Research Institute. He would take me through the research and development services agreement entered by them with various other clients and one of them is Pioneer Overseas Corporation to emphasise the point that they had undertaken these research and development service in respect of various transgenic events, trait/technology evaluation of the seeds which are being developed in order to arrive at a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33% of the area for which they have sought permission for construction of Research and Development facility. I find that the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Nhava Sheva Intl. Container Terminal (P). Ltd. (supra) would cover the issue in favour of appellant. In my view, the 1 st Appellate authority was in error in rejecting the refund claim of approximately ₹ 65,000/-. The impugned order to that extent is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. As regards the service tax liability discharged by the service provider for fencing of the land leased out by the appellant, I find that the lower authorities were correct in coming to a conclusion that these services which were rendered by the service providers could not be corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
