2019 (3) TMI 2020 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of the service tax paid for services used for authorized operations of SEZ - denial on the ground of nexus with authorized operations - HELD THAT - The service tax paid on services used by the appellants for authorized operations are exempted by N/N. 2/2013 and the precursor Notification No.40/2012 on fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. Para 3(1) states that the services are to be approved by Approval Committee - In the present case all the services listed in the table above have been approved by the Approval Committee. In such circumstances, the department cannot reject the refund claim stating that these are used only for facilitation of employees and not for authorized operations. The Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX PUNE VERSUS EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. 2016 (1) TMI 1191 - CESTAT MUMBAI had occasion to analyze the very same issue and dismissed the department s appeal filed against sanction of refund. The rejection of refund is unjustified. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund in respect of the five services given in the table above is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for service tax paid by SEZ Unit under Notification No.12/2013-ST, rejection of refund in appeal, nexus of services with authorized operations, approval by Development Commissioner, exemption under notification, rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellant, a SEZ Unit providing IT and Business Auxiliary Services, filed a refund claim for service tax paid for authorized SEZ operations under Notification No.12/2013-ST. The original authority partially sanctioned the refund but rejected a balance amount. In appeal, the Commissioner rejected the refund for five services totaling Rs.27,65,110. The appellant contended that all services were approved by the Development Commissioner, and the rejection based on lack of nexus with authorized operations was incorrect. They argued that since the services were approved for authorized operations, the refund should not have been rejected. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the findings in the impugned order. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined the notification under consideration. It noted that services used for authorized operations are exempted if approved by the Approval Committee, which was the case for all services in question. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that if services were utilized in connection with authorized operations, the refund should not be rejected. The Tribunal found the rejection of refund unjustified and set aside the impugned order regarding the five services listed. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the rejection of the refund claim for services approved by the Development Commissioner and used for authorized operations was unwarranted. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to the conditions stated in the notification for exemption of service tax on services utilized for SEZ operations. The judgment provided clarity on the nexus requirement between services availed and authorized operations, ensuring fair treatment in refund claims for SEZ Units.