M\/s. Ascendas IT SEZ, Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 420 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
ST\/Misc. \/40816\/2017 & ST\/40277 And 40278\/2014 – Final Order Nos. 42759-42760\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nIn both these appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim filed by them under Notification No.9\/2009.
\n2. The ld. counsel for appellants Shri Harish Bindumadhavan submitted that in Appeal No. ST\/40277\/2014, the issue is that the refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of an amount of Rs. 14,65,106\/- was rejected for the reason that the category \/ classification of services noted by the service provider in the invoice was not an approved service by the Unit Approval Committee. He submitted that there is<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ant. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim stating that the services are not approved cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in the cases of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North – 2018-TIOL-3115-CESTAT-BANG and Petronet LNG Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – 2017 (7) GSTL 54 (Tri. Del.). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n x months of payment of service tax. The notification also stipulates in para 2 clause (f) that the time can be extended by the Assistant \/ Deputy Commissioner, if necessary. The period for condonation of delay or extension has not been fixed in the notification. It is submitted by him that the refund claims have been filed within one year of the payment of service tax and would be well within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relied upon the decision in the case of TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. – 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri.) to support his argument. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Ascendas IT SEZ, Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai SouthService Tax2018 (11) TMI 420 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 1-11-2018ST\/Misc. \/40816\/2017 & ST\/40277 And 40278\/2014 – Final Order Nos. 42759-42760\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, … Continue reading “M\/s. Ascendas IT SEZ, Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South”<\/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-14897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14897","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=14897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that since the Real Estate Agent Service are not approved service for the appellant, the refund has been rightly rejected.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. On perusal of the records, I find that as per the agreement the service provider is appointed as property manager for the appellant. In clause 4, the fees for the property manager is fixed. The said activities of the property manager include marketing of immovable property also. In certain cases, the property manager has undertaken marketing on immovable property of the appellant and has issued<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. The ld. AR supported the findings in the impugned order and he specifically adverted to page 7 of the impugned order. The appellants have not furnished satisfying reasons for the delay caused and therefore the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim.
\n8. Heard both sides.
\n9. After hearing submissions made by both sides and perusal of Notification 9\/2009, I find that though the time-<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n