2011 (6) TMI 34 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - SEZ unit - Notification No. 9/2009 - Circular No. 114/8/2009-ST dated 20.5.2009 - Held that the request made on behalf of the appellants is reasonable and hence the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration in regard to the time bar issue for the early part of the refund before whom the appellant shall submit the reasons backed by adequate evidence for the delay caused in applying for the refund claim for his consideration the impugned services were provided outside the zone and the appellants will be able to prove that these services were not consumed wholly within the SEZ, given a second chance - Hence in this regard also, the appeal is remanded to the original authority for consideration of the adequate evidence to be produced by the appellants to prove that they satisfy the requirement of sub-para (c) of the proviso to paragraph 1 of the Notification No. 9/2009 dated 3.3.2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/2009 dated 20.5.2009 - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Refund claims rejection under Notification No. 9/2009, time bar issue, services usage in SEZ, remand for fresh consideration.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, the primary issue revolves around the rejection of refund claims of an SEZ unit under Notification No. 9/2009. The appellant's claims for Rs.50,996 and Rs.4,65,269 were dismissed due to submission beyond the stipulated six-month period. The counsel for the appellants argued for a second chance to provide valid reasons for the delay, as permitted by the notification. The tribunal found the request reasonable and remanded the matter to the original authority for reevaluation of the time bar issue, requiring the appellants to submit supported reasons for the delay.

Another issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the rejection of the part of the refund claim submitted within the prescribed period. The original authority denied the claim on the grounds of services not being used for authorized SEZ operations. However, the lower appellate authority acknowledged the services' relevance to authorized operations but rejected the appeal for non-compliance with the notification's provisions. The counsel contended that the services were utilized outside the SEZ and requested a chance to prove compliance. The tribunal deemed the request reasonable and remanded the appeal for the original authority to consider the evidence presented by the appellants and ensure compliance with the notification's requirements.

Conclusively, the impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed for remand to the original authority. The appellants were granted the opportunity for a fresh hearing to present adequate evidence and reasons as required by the notification and related circulars. The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the regulatory provisions and providing substantiated justifications for any delays or non-compliance in refund claims within SEZ units.