9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Terminals P. Ltd, on the determination that they were entitled to the consequences of retrospective exemption accorded to the activity rendered in a works contract awarded by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust. 2. The tax liability, discharged for the period 1st May 2015 to 29th February 2016, as provider of 'works contract service' on which the exclusion, pertaining, inter alia, to ports, effected by notification no.25/2012-ST dated 20th June 2012, arose from its withdrawal by notification no. 6/2015-ST dated 1st March 2015 to be restored later by notification no. 9/2016-ST dated 1st March 2016. By incorporation of section 103 through Finance Act, 2003, the exemption, withheld for the inter regnum, was made applicable with retrospective effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent had concurred with Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust to include the tax component in the capitalisation to avail higher depreciation. It is also contended that the requirement, in notification no. 9/2016-ST dated 1st March 2016, prescribing certification of the contract having been entered into before 1st March 2015 had not been complied with. 6. Learned Authorised Representative contends that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Presto Industries [2001 (128) ELT 321 (SC)] and that of the Tribunal in Mars Plastics & Polymers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2003 (156) ELT 941 (Tri-Mumbai)] required the applicant of refund to establish their eligibility for benefit of any exemption notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hension that appears to have led by the Committee on that path is apparent from reference to the amount involved in the refund, superfluous though it be. The withdrawal of the exemption for a limited period was considered to be crucial enough for reconsideration and it is with full authority of Parliament that the exemption was not only restored but refund of amount already paid legislated upon. Notwithstanding this enactment by this supreme legislative organ of the State, innate caution of the executive appears to have asserted itself. 10. The appellant appears to be apprehensive that the accounting treatment of the tax, under claim for refund, and the consequence of capitalisation of this amount would enable availment of benefit of depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
