2019 (8) TMI 966 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - rejection on the ground that the input services are commonly used for both SEZ and DTA operations - HELD THAT - The issue decided in appellant own case M/S MANGALORE SEZ LTD VERSUS C.E,S. T-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL TAX, MANGALORE COMMISSIONERATE 2019 (8) TMI 490 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the refund has been allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of service tax refund claims for specific periods.

Analysis:
The appellant filed two appeals against orders rejecting their service tax refund claims for the periods January to March 2017 and April to June 2017. The Tribunal consolidated both appeals due to identical issues. The focus was on the refund claim of ?64,240 for January to March 2017, related to service tax paid for specified services in the SEZ. The claim was found to be time-barred for January and February 2017, not proportionate to authorized operations, and used in common between SEZ and DTA. A show-cause notice was issued, and the refund was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (A).

The appellant argued that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability and referenced previous Tribunal orders where refunds were allowed for similar grounds. The AR defended the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that in similar cases, refunds were allowed for the appellant based on identical grounds. The Tribunal referenced specific findings from previous orders where refunds were granted due to the nature of operations, absence of a DTA unit, and compliance with relevant notifications. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals of the appellant based on the precedent set by previous decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable in law and allowed the appeals by following the precedent established in the appellant's previous cases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with relevant regulations and notifications in determining the eligibility for service tax refunds. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the facts, legal arguments presented by both parties, and consistent application of legal principles established in previous judgments.