SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
ST – Refund - Percentage of Input services that is allowable in r/o SEZ area is to be computed by excluding services that were provided exclusively to SEZ and in respect of which there is no dispute: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 27 , 2014: INGENUITY knows no bounds, aptly sums up the issue involved in this case.

The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.1,69,576/- in respect of input services provided to Special Economic Zone (SEZ).

Out of the said amount, the lower authorities sanctioned the refund claim of Rs.43,656/- which was in respect of the services exclusively provided to SEZ. The balance amount of Rs.1,25,920/- was rejected by holding that the said were relatable to SEZ area as also to the area outside SEZ.

The matter travelled to the Tribunal and vide Final Order dated 04.04.2012 the Bench remanded the matter to the lower authorities for re-calculation of refund by adopting the value of services rendered inside the SEZ as well as outside the SEZ.

During the de novo adjudication, the appellants produced a Chartered Accountant certificate indicating that value of the services provided to SEZ was 49.16%. The lower authorities applied the above ratio to the total refund of Rs.1,69,576/- and after taking into account the already sanctioned refund claim of Rs.43,656/-, they allowed the balance refund amount of Rs.39,708/-.

Again, the appellants took the matter to the Tribunal.

It is submitted that the ratio of 49.16% was to be applied to the disputed amount only inasmuch as there was no dispute about the already sanctioned refund of Rs.43,656/-. Simply put, the ratio of 49.16% is to be applied to the balance amount of Rs.1,25,920/- which was relatable to the common services provided to SEZ as well as outside the SEZ area.

The Bench observed -

"5. I find force in the above contention of the Ld. Advocate. There is no dispute about the refund of Rs.43,656/-, which was also not the subject matter of the Tribunal's order dated 04.04.2012. The dispute before the Tribunal was in respect of Rs.1,25,920/-, which related to the refund of common services. As such, the percentage of the value of the services has to be applied to the common services and not to the entire refund claim."

In fine, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for recalculation of the appellants' entitlement to the refund.

In passing: Also see 2013-TIOL-1154-CESTAT-DEL.

(See 2014-TIOL-868-CESTAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST