2018 (10) TMI 544 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Condonation of delay in filing refund application – refund of service tax – SEZ Unit – N/N. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 – Held that:- The said order of the adjudicating authority not condoning delay in few applications, needs reconsideration as the procedure mentioned in the Notification No.40/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012 for sanctioning of the refund claims based on this exemption notification, specifically at clause 3(a) indicates that refund claims should be filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made by such developer or unit (SEZ) to the registered service provider but considering the situation prevalent at ground level, such clause 3(a) specifically grants powers to the Asst. Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner of the Central Excise as the case may be condoning the delay of such extended period.
–
There is no limit laid down in the said clause during the relevant period. In the ca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
paid by various service providers, they are being disposed of separately in this order on the factual matrix. 4. The appellant herein is an SEZ unit; took service tax registration as non-assessee category for claiming exemption from payment of service tax (by way of refund) on various taxable services received by them in relation to authorized operations in SEZ in terms of Notification No.40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Appellant preferred refund claims before the lower authorities. The said refund claims were partly allowed and partly rejected. It is on record that appellant had list of services approved by Ministry of Commerce and Industry for authorized operations in SEZ unit. 5. In Appeal No.ST/30349/2018, the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has in respect of refund application No.198 & 199 for an amount of ₹ 39,583/- came to be rejected on the ground that the refund of service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab services is not due as the same is not spe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
date of payment to service provider. The adjudicating authority in the case in hand has, wherever an application is made, for condonation of delay has condoned the same and rejected the refund claim of ₹ 13,17,625/- as being hit by limitation. The first appellate authority has also upheld the said Order-in-Original. 7. It is the claim of the learned counsel that the dispute is regarding only the documents filed in support of the online refund claims filed by the appellant. It is his submission that the payments to service providers were made on various dates in the period spread between April, 2012 to June, 2013 and the delay in filing the refund claims was spread from 0 months to 13 months. It is his submission that though adjudicating authority has condoned the delay up to 3 months, during the relevant period the refund claims were to be supported by proof of payment of service tax by the service providers to the Government of India which took time. It was submitted that this
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
onth in which actual payment of service tax was made by such developer or unit (SEZ) to the registered service provider but considering the situation prevalent at ground level, such clause 3(a) specifically grants powers to the Asst. Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner of the Central Excise as the case may be condoning the delay of such extended period. There is no limit laid down in the said clause during the relevant period. In the case in hand, the adjudicating authority should have exercised this power granted to him for condoning the delay by appreciating the factual matrix in a broader perspective, wherein the delay has been sought to be explained. In my view, the impugned order and the adjudication order for rejection of refund claims of ₹ 13,75,625/- needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority looking at the circumstances at which appellant had to file the refund claims belatedly. Appellant also needs to file appropriate chart as to how the delay had occurred and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =