M\/s. V. Stephen Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai-South)
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1180 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/42129\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40154\/2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nShri R. Viswanathan, CA for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nService 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 ex<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ted at Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and hence the services were consumed within the SEZ. It is the case of the appellant that during the impugned period, he rendered services to M\/s. Perlos Telecommunication & Electronics Components India Pvt. Ltd. (in short M\/s. Perlos) situated at M\/s. Nokia Telecom Special Economic Zone-SEZ, Kancheepuram; that M\/s. Perlos had closed its business for which reason the appellant could not obtain Form A1; etc. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. V. Stephen Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai-South)Service Tax2019 (1) TMI 1180 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 23-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/42129\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40154\/2019Service TaxShri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri R. Viswanathan, CA for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Service tax was … Continue reading “M\/s. V. Stephen Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (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-16315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16315","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=16315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4.1 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 be<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n