2013 (6) TMI 106 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - provision of services to SEZ - consumption in SEZ - services in relation to authorized operations - held that - there is no dispute as to the Service Tax liability having been discharged by the service provider, that the services were received by the appellant, and Service Tax provider is registered with the authorities and raised a proper bill. - the appellant is a SEZ unit, is eligible to receive these services without payment of Service Tax. In view of decision in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (2012 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and Zydus Tech. Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 1014 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD refund allowed, decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rejection of refund claim of Service Tax paid on Rent-a-cab scheme operator, Management, Maintenance & Repair services and Management Consultancy Services.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim of Service Tax paid on specific services by a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit. The appellant had filed a refund claim under Notification No.09/2009-ST but faced rejection due to various reasons, including some services being wholly consumed within the SEZ and not used in relation to authorized operations. The lower authorities upheld the rejection, leading to an appeal.

The appellant argued that the services for which the refund was claimed were necessary for the functioning of the SEZ and cited a relevant judgment to support the claim. On the other hand, the Department contended that services wholly consumed within the SEZ were not eligible for refund. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records to reach a decision.

The Tribunal observed that the issue revolved around the rejection of the refund claim for specific services. It noted that there was no dispute regarding the discharge of Service Tax liability by the service provider, the receipt of services by the appellant, and the proper documentation. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision to establish that SEZ units could claim a refund if they received services on payment of Service Tax, even though they were eligible to receive them without tax.

The Tribunal further discussed the conditions for refund eligibility under relevant notifications and laws. It highlighted that services wholly consumed within the SEZ were exempt from payment of tax and that the appellant, if eligible for refund under Section 11B, should not be denied based on the specific notification. The Tribunal emphasized that services to SEZ units were deemed as exports, entitling them to tax exemptions.

Referring to a similar case precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the Service Tax paid on the mentioned services. It set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing the appellant's eligibility for the refund.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the rejection of the refund claim for specific services by an SEZ unit, highlighting the legal provisions, previous decisions, and the appellant's entitlement to the refund despite certain services being wholly consumed within the SEZ.