Page 174 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

644 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
correctly held that small typographical mistake could not be considered
as wrong address - Service stands complete if process sent by registered
post with acknowledgment due to person for whom intended - Mere
typographical error that too of merely one slash being substituted by
numeral one with rest of address being same cannot lead to presumption
that postal services will not be in position to make out said error - That
assessee had knowledge of order discerned from its letter to Department
- Mandate of procedural law of limitation must be given full effect if
apparent mala fide or negligence on assessee’s part existed - Dismissal of
appeal not interfered with — Gayatri Pest Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
C. Ex., Indore (Tri. - Del.) ................................. 141
Appellate Tribunal - Non-speaking order - Refund of Service Tax - Port
services - Prima facie, it appears from order of First Appellate Authority
that service provider has only charged wharfage charges directly payable
to port authorities and therefor held that said charges are not covered
under Port services - In its order Tribunal has not decided real issue
involved but has issued a non-speaking order in favour of assessee
without any discussion on facts of case as brought out in order of First
Appellate Authority - Tribunal being last fact finding authority ought to
have discussed relevant facts before setting aside order of First Appellate
Authority on the basis of some earlier order - Thus, without going into
question of law at this stage, matter remanded to Tribunal to redecide
issue after proper discussion on facts and after giving hearing
opportunity to both parties - Section 86 of Finance Act, 1994 —
Commissioner of GST & C. Ex., Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (Mad.) .......... 29
Area Based Exemption - Migration to GST - Exemption to industrial units
for period not exceeding 10 years - New industrial unit for manufacture
of motor vehicles established at Hardwar, Uttarakhand commenced
commercial production in its industrial unit from 7-4-2008 - Rescission of
exemption notification and beneficial incentives granted to unit ceased to
continue w.e.f. 1-7-2017 - On 5-10-2017 Budgetary Support Scheme
notified providing reimbursements of Central Government’s share of the
cash component of CGST and IGST, i.e., 58% of CGST and 29% of IGST,
in lieu of exemption provided under exemption notification - On a
petition seeking 100% benefit - HELD : 100% tax exemption under
industrial policy envisaged under previous regime - Said policy can no
longer be invoked and therefore, exemption notifications issued
implementing said policy also have lost mandate - Introduction of
Budgetary Support Scheme not to entitle petitioner support on entire
fiscal benefits as originally envisaged under 2003 policy - Budgetary
Support Scheme under GST not in lieu of exemptions that were granted
under previous fiscal incentives schemes for providing exemptions under
Central Excise Act, 1944 and other such legislations - Recognizing
hardships arising out to withdrawal of exemptions notifications not to be
understood or categorized as an admission of any such right in favour of
petitioner - GST a destination based tax, exemptions, under GST regime
having entirely different dimensions and therefore no area-based
exemptions envisaged under GST regime - Budgetary Support Scheme
not an exemption under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 -
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  174