2019 (1) TMI 1180 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Benefit of N/N. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 – services consumed within SEZ – denial of benefit on the ground that appellant did not furnish declaration in Form A-1 for claiming the benefit of exemption in terms of the Notification – whether the denial of substantial relief be made for non-compliance with a procedure? – Held that:- The issue of providing service and the service being consumed at SEZ is not in dispute and it is also undisputed that the service recipient viz. M/s. Perlos closed down its business and hence, Form A1 could never be obtained and hence non-furnishing of Form A1 is not deliberate, which was beyond the control of the appellant.
–
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
an, CA for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Service tax was sought to be recovered by the Revenue vide the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 23.03.2017, alleging that the assessee claiming to be covered under Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 did not furnish declaration in Form A-1 for claiming the benefit of exemption in terms of the above Notification. Vide Order-in-Original dated 18.01.2018, the exemption was thus denied and the proposed demand in the SCN was confirmed and so also the demand upheld, in the Order-in-Appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this forum. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Shri R. Viswanathan, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pecial Economic Zone-SEZ, Kancheepuram; that M/s. Perlos had closed its business for which reason the appellant could not obtain Form A1; etc. 4.1 I find the issue of providing service and the service being consumed at SEZ is not in dispute and it is also undisputed that the service recipient viz. M/s. Perlos closed down its business and hence, Form A1 could never be obtained and hence non-furnishing of Form A1 is not deliberate, which was beyond the control of the appellant. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. DC – 1991 (8) TMI 83 (S.C) has clearly laid down that procedural infraction of notifications, circulars, etc. are condonable and would not coming in the way of extending substantial
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =