2017 (3) TMI 1359 - AT - Central Excise

SEZ unit - refund claim - N/N. 17/2011 dt.01.03.2011 - whether the subsequent approval of the legal service by the UAC could be held to be eligible to for refund of service tax paid on such service being sufficient compliance of the condition laid down under N/N. 17/2011-ST - Held that - the issue is no more res integra as settled by the judgment of this Tribunal in Makers Mart s case 2016 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that Refund cannot be denied merely for procedural lapse - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing technical appeal
- Refund claim of Service Tax on legal consultancy services
- Compliance with Notification No.17/2011-ST for refund eligibility

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the technical appeal, which was allowed by the Tribunal as the consolidated appeal was filed within time. The delay in filing Appeal No.11944/2016 was condoned, and both appeals were taken up for disposal.

Refund Claim of Service Tax on Legal Consultancy Services:
The dispute revolved around the inclusion of legal consultancy service charges in the list approved by the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) for SEZ units. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, claimed a refund of Service Tax paid on various services, including legal consultancy services. The refund claim was for the period March 2011 to September 2011, but the legal consultancy service charges were included in the UAC list only on 02.01.2012. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submission that there was no dispute regarding the utilization of the input service in manufacturing finished goods for export. Citing a precedent (Makers Mart Vs CCE Jaipur-II), the Tribunal held that subsequent approval by the UAC made the appellant eligible for a refund under Notification No.17/2011.

Compliance with Notification No.17/2011-ST:
The key issue was whether the subsequent approval of legal services by the UAC made the appellant eligible for a refund of Service Tax paid on such services, complying with Notification No.17/2011-ST. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set in Makers Mart's case and concluded that the subsequent approval of legal services by the UAC was sufficient compliance with the conditions laid down in the notification. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals, the eligibility criteria for claiming refunds on specific services, and the significance of compliance with relevant notifications in tax matters.