2016 (1) TMI 1191 - AT - Service Tax

EON Free Zone - benefit of N/N. 40/2012-ST dated 20th June 2012 - whether services for which tax has been collected along with consideration by the provider have been utilised in connection with the authorized operations for which the competent authority is the Development Commissioner? - Held that - There is no finding that these are not approved services. The assessment to tax and the exemption provided under N/N. 40/2012-ST merely lays down the procedure for reimbursement of a tax that should not have been collected in the first place. That it was collected is attributable to the caution exercised by the service provider who would rather not tangle with the possible intransigence on the part of service tax officers. No evidence has been produced to show that M/s Mayur Hotels has not rendered outdoor catering service or provided catering service outside the zone - there is no ground to warrant interference in the impugned order appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Utilization of 'outdoor catering service', 'storage and warehousing service', and 'business auxiliary service' by a company in a special economic zone.

Utilization of 'Outdoor Catering Service':
The appeal pertained to the utilization of 'outdoor catering service', 'storage and warehousing service', and 'business auxiliary service' by a company in a special economic zone. The company applied for a refund of service tax borne while availing these services. The original authority disallowed a portion of the claim as it did not relate to authorized operations of the SEZ. The first appellate authority allowed further refund after modifying the order. The impugned order held that charges for 'outdoor catering service' provided by a specific hotel were eligible for refund as approved under the SEZ Act. The service tax on 'storage and warehousing service' and 'business auxiliary service' was also allowed as exempt. The Authorized Representative argued against the eligibility of the catering service provider, stating it was not 'outdoor catering service'. However, the Counsel for the respondent contended that the invoices proved the service was for 'outdoor catering service' as only 60% of the value was taxed, applicable only to such services.

Interpretation of Taxable Services:
The appeal centered on whether the description in the invoices should match the taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994 for exemption eligibility. The Revenue assumed that the food charges invoice was for 'indoor catering', not taxable. However, it was acknowledged that the services provided were taxable, and the service tax had been paid. The key issue was whether the services utilized were in connection with the authorized operations approved by the Development Commissioner. The judgment emphasized that the tax reimbursement procedure under notification no. 40/2012-ST aimed to refund erroneously collected tax. Lack of evidence was noted regarding the catering provider not offering 'outdoor catering service' or catering outside the zone. Consequently, there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of services being utilized in connection with authorized operations in a special economic zone. The judgment highlighted the necessity for evidence supporting the eligibility of services for tax exemption and the caution exercised by service providers in tax collection. Lack of proof regarding the nature of catering services provided outside the zone led to the decision not to interfere with the refund granted to the company.