TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Appellant herein is an SEZ unit and had received various services during the period April 2009 to March 2013 and March 2011 to July 2012. The claims were filed under notification No. 9/2009-ST and notification No. 17/2011-ST, dated 1.3.2011 which stipulated filing of refund claims within one year from the end of the quarters. It is seen from the records that appellant had filed these returns on 07.10.2013 and 21.10.2013. Both the lower authorities have come to a conclusion that the appellant had filed the returns belatedly i.e. beyond the period of one year as mentioned in the notification No. 9/2009-ST and notification No. 17/2011-ST. 5. It was brought to my notice by Ld. Counsel that in case of exports the SEZ units, more specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities. He would submit that the assessee wants the benefit of notification issued without adhering the conditions mentioned therein. 8. On perusal of records, I find that it is not in dispute that appellant is an SEZ unit and he is not liable to pay any tax or duty for the services on the inputs received by him as per SEZ Act. In order to monitor as a facilitative mechanism, notification No. 17/2011-ST provided for discharge of service tax liability by the service providers first and subsequently the service recipient in SEZ to claim the said refund after making the payment to the service provider. The said notification, as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel, does have a clause for extending the time or condoning the delay in filing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We find that the first appellate authority has correctly recorded the fact that it is settled principle as to Rules and Notifications are issued from to time to supplement the provisions of main Act and grant of relief of refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods has to be sanctioned to the respondent when conditions prescribed in the main Act are fulfilled. We also find strong force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that this Bench in the case of Raymond Ltd. (supra) has held as under:- 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In the present case the refund claim pertains to the quarter October-December, 2008. The appellant have filed the refund claims ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 41/2007 as amended by Notification No. 17/2007 and the time bar aspect is not attracted. However, the appellant has to satisfy that they have fulfilled the other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority only for satisfying that the appellant has fulfilled the other terms and conditions stipulated in Notification No. 41/2007 and the time-bar issue will have no application. 6.1 The above reproduced ratio of the Tribunal is squarely applicable in this case also and the conclusion reached by the first appellate authority cannot be faulted with. 6.2 On the issue and the reliance placed by learned D.R. on the judgement of the Honble Apex Court in ....