WS Industries India Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GST
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 544 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-9-2018
Appeal Nos. ST\/30348 & 30349\/2018 – A\/31162-31163\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri D.V. Subba Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent\/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: M.V. Ravindran]
\n1. These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-EXCUS- 002-APP-101-102-17-18, Dt.22.12.2017.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. The issue involved in both these appeals, though being the question of refund to an SEZ unit of service tax paid by various service providers, they are being disposed of separately in this order on the factual matrix.
\n4. 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 rec<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n at the list of services which were approved by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, by Letter No. 2(6)\/APSEZ\/2010-1 dated 29.04.2010, indicates at Sl.No.18 the services rendered by Rent-a-Cab operator. Since the said services are approved for authorized operations, I find that impugned Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-EXCUS-002-APP-101-102-17-18 dated 22.12.2017 to the extent contested in this appeal is set aside and the refund applications are allowed as eligible for refund of Rs. 39,583\/- (including cesses). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ndonable period was condoned. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" WS Industries India Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GSTService Tax2018 (10) TMI 544 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 11-9-2018Appeal Nos. ST\/30348 & 30349\/2018 – A\/31162-31163\/2018Service TaxMr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri D.V. Subba Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent\/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. These … Continue reading “WS Industries India Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. In respect of Appeal No.ST\/30348\/2018, the refund claims have been rejected on the ground that the said refund claims were filed beyond the period of one year from the 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 Rs. 13,17,625\/- as being hit by limitation. The first appellate authority has also upheld the said Order-in-Original.\n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that the adjudicating authority has condoned the delay of three months in few refund applications which were filed by the appellant herein but has not condoned the delay in respect of other applications. The said order of the adjudicating authority not condoning delay in few applications, in my view 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 <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n