9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reas the conditions of Para 3(III)(a) would be applicable only when the assessee has units in both SEZ and DTA whereas in the present case, the appellant has unit only in SEZ and make supply from SEZ to DTA unit and therefore the said condition of Para 3(III)(a) is not applicable in the present case - the denial of refund to the appellant is not sustainable in law. Rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The combined reading of Para 3(III)(e) and 3(III)(f) of the Notification clearly shows that the refund claim were within time limit - the denial of refund on time barred is also not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21646/2018-SM - Final Order No.20624/2019 - Dated:- 8-8-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in proportion to value of authorized operations to total turnover and also value of operation in DTA is not furnished. 2.1. After following the due process, the original authority rejected the claim of the appellant under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the said appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble only when the assessee has the units in both SEZ and DTA whereas in the present case, the appellant has unit only in SEZ and makes supply from SEZ to DTA unit that is clearly recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that the supply of water is an authorized operation and the supply of water in the DTA need not be mentioned explicitly. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Adani Powers Ltd. Vs Commissioner reported in 2016 (44) STR 146 (Tri. Ahmd.). He further submitted that the refund of ₹ 49,711/- for the period from October 2016 to November 2016 has been rejected on time bar. Learned Consultant referred to the conditions in Para 3(III)(e) and 3(III)(f) of the Notification and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 204/- has been rejected on the ground that the input services are commonly used for both SEZ and DTA operations. Further, the part of the refund amounting to ₹ 49,711/- was rejected being barred by limitation. Further, I find that the appellant has submitted that in their own case for the period January to March 2015, Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore has allowed the refund claim on identical facts and the same has not been challenged by the Revenue and has attained finality. Further, I also find that the Commissioner, Mysore has also sanctioned the refund vide Order-in-Original dated 29.06.2018 in the appellants own case. Further, I find that the appellant does not have any DTA unit, they are only making supply to a DTA unit whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
