9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus, the appellants are entitle to refund in respect of services received by them for the authorized operations even if, such services are not listed as a specified services in the list approved by the Approval Committee. Interest on delay in payment of refund in terms of Section 11BB - HELD THAT:- There is no specific mechanism provided for notification No. 12/2013-ST. Consequently, all these refund would be governed by Section 11B and therefore, the appellant would be entitle to interest in terms of Section 11BB. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentitle immunity to Service Tax enjoined by the provisions of the 2005 Act. It therefore appears that Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 merely contour the process by which the benefit of exemption/immunity to tax is operationalised. Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 have provided a facilitative regime whereby a developer or units of SEZ, as recipients of taxable service are enabled the facility of claiming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that this provision have been interpreted by Tribunal in the following cases:- * MAKERS MART Vs. CCE &ST- 2016 (43) STR 309 (Tri-Del.) * ZYDUS HOSPIRA ONCOLOGY PVT. LTD. Vs.- 2013 (30) STR 487 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. CCT- 2021 (49) GSTL 11 (Tri.-Bang.) * MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICE LTD. Vs. CCE- 2015 (38) STR 841 (Tri.-Mum.) 2.2 He further pointed out that all these refund are granted under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and consequently, they are also entitled to interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. 03. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. Learned AR also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of KOLLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.- 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act 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, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/sub-paragraph 'c' of Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n following has been observed :- 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
