Page 233 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] TEKNOMEC v. COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 135
O RN/R-50/2015, dated 19-2-2015. The issue under consideration before
the Hon’ble Commissioner (Appeals-II) in the said case was:- (1) Whether
the appellants had paid the amount of Rs. 12,582/- as service tax and
shown the same in the relevant return and whether the services provided to
MCGM & BARC were exempted. Whether the said service tax paid by the
appellants was actually related to the services provided to Government au-
thority vide the bills submitted by them. (2) Whether the appellants had
filed their claim supported by sufficient documentation and were eligible
for refund of the amounts or otherwise. The Ld. Commissioner examined
the Work completion certificate of MCGM & BARC, Appellants’ bank
statements dated 31-3-2013 which specified that the disputed amounts were
neither charged by the appellant nor received from the Recipients of Service
in respect of the services rendered and other documents related to the re-
fund claim. Further, he observed that the application for refund had been
filed within one year from the relevant date and therefore the claimant had
satisfied the conditions of Section 11B of the Act. On the basis of the said
observation, the appeal was decided in favour of the appellants.
However, in the impugned order dated 24-12-2014, against which subject
appeal has been filed before me, the refund claims have been rejected by
the original adjudicating authority as being time-barred.”
After going through the order passed by the another Commissioner for the dif-
ferent period in Appellant’s own case, I completely agree with the above obser-
vations of the Learned Commissioner in the impugned order and in my view
there is no infirmity in the aforesaid observation made by the Learned Commis-
sioner while rejecting this submission of the Appellant.
11. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made in the preceding par-
agraphs I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
and the Appeal filed by the Appellants is hereby rejected.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 19-7-2019)

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 135 (Tri. - Chennai)

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
TEKNOMEC
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
Final Order No. 40927/2019, dated 9-7-2019 in Appeal No. ST/42068/2018-SM
Refund - Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Exemption re-
lating to long term lease of industrial plots under Section 104(1) of Finance
Act, 2017 - Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of President on 31-3-2017, thus
the refund claim, ought to have been filed on or before 30-9-2017 - Refund
claim was filed on 16-11-2017 - Service Tax on development charges was col-
lected by SIPCOT, who is service provider - Thus only after getting infor-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  297