ST - Assessee is a Unit located in SEZ and engaged in manufacture of solar modules and parts thereof - SEZ Unit is exempted from payment of ST vide exemption Notfn 40/12-ST which provides exemption by way of refund of service tax paid - Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal by observing that admittedly, the assessee's Unit is located in SEZ and was exempted from payment of ST by way of refund of ST paid by them - Revenue is proposing to confirm the already granted refund on the sole ground that requisition of Rule 4A of STR, 1994, have not been satisfied - Assessee has himself paid ST on reverse charge basis on the strength of various challans - As such, he held that he is deemed to have provided services in India and challan issued by him is proper documents evidencing payment of service tax - The said challan issued by assessee contained all the requisite details required under law and as such has to be held as eligible documents - For said proposition, he has relied upon Tribunal's decision in case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. , who dealt with the same objection of Revenue - Revenue in their memo of appeal, has not been satisfactorily able to convass their case - Once the substantive condition of Notfn has been fulfilled by an assessee, denial of refund on the procedural condition, which are impossible to observe, cannot be appreciated: CESTAT - Appeals rejected: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

ST - Issue relates to eligibility of refund of service tax paid on export of goods in accordance with Notfn 41/2007-ST - Refund claims were rejected raising various objections including discrepancy in documents/input invoices on eligibility to refund of service tax paid on various services - Tribunal for the period July 2008 to September 2008 being confronted with similar situation, involving more or less similar input services, remanded the matter to adjudicating authority - Adjudicating authority after reconsideration of issues, partly allowed the refund claims - Therefore, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issues afresh: CESTAT - Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

FTDR - Penalty - Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by first respondent rejecting their appeal as time barred - The petitioner admittedly did not prefer the appeal within a period of 45 plus 30 days and time expired on 01.06.2015, whereas the appeal was presented only on 18.05.2017 - Thus, appeal petition having been filed beyond the condonable period, first respondent was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition - Petitioner contends that they having paid the entire duty with interest in June 2015, it was incumbent on the part of second respondent to regularize the EPCG license, but no orders were passed and therefore, petitioner could not file the appeal in time - Said reason is not acceptable as it is seen that petitioner is aggrieved only by imposition of penalty and the question of authority being compelled to close the case by accepting duty and interest alone does not arise - Though petitioner wanted to close the matter and pay duty and interest and expressed willingness to do so by their letter dated 03.11.2014, they did not keep up to their commitment and the payment was effected only on 01.06.2015, that too, after the O-I-O was passed - Said conduct of importer clearly shows that no indulgence could have been granted to them by second respondent - Accordingly levy of penalty was justified: HC - Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT