2017 (5) TMI 894 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ developers - Refund claim - Banking and Financial Services - Real Estate Agents and Consultant Services - Held that - the said services were consumed by the appellant as an unit/developer in SEZ during the relevant period, When there is no dispute that services are consumed in a SEZ the question of rejecting the refund claim in itself is incorrect. - list of services which are used for authorized operation in a SEZ Includes these two services i.e., Banking and Financial Services and Real Estate Agent services - on a request made by appellant, the office of the Development Commissioner by letter dated 20.11.2012 informed appellant that i e, Banking and Financial services and Real Estate Agent Services are authorized services from the date of application i e. , December 2008 onwards - services are authorized for refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims for service tax paid on Banking and Financial Services and Real Estate Agents and Consultant Services in SEZ.
2. Interpretation of notifications regarding authorized services in SEZ.
3. Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed refund claims for service tax paid on specific services in SEZ, citing notifications allowing for refunds. Lower authorities rejected the claim, stating the services were not authorized. Appellant argued services were approved by the Development Commissioner.

2. The Chartered Accountant for the appellant presented a list of approved services for SEZ operations issued by the Development Commissioner in 2009, which included the disputed services. He highlighted that the notifications did not require a fresh certificate for authorized services and provided a letter from the Development Commissioner confirming authorization from the date of the appellant's application in 2008.

3. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decision. However, the Member (Judicial) found the rejection of the refund claim incorrect for several reasons. Firstly, the services were consumed in the SEZ, making the rejection baseless. Secondly, the records showed the Development Commissioner approved the disputed services for authorized SEZ operations in 2009. Lastly, a letter from the Development Commissioner confirmed the authorization of the services from the appellant's application date in 2008.

4. Considering the facts and the Development Commissioner's explicit approval of the services, the Member (Judicial) concluded that the lower authorities' decision was incorrect and unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was granted.