2015 (5) TMI 453 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - SEZ unit - Notification 17/2011-ST dated 01/03/2011 - Rejection has been made only on the ground that the approval committee of the concerned SEZ issued the certificate on 09/12/2011 - Held that - There is no dispute that the input services on which refund has been claimed has been used in the export of services. There is also no dispute that the appellant applied for approval to the competent authority well before they undertook the transaction of the export. Merely because there was a delay in grant of approval, that cannot take away the right accrued to the appellant for exemption from service tax in respect of the input services. The ratio of the decision in the case of Global Wool Alliance Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 637 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) squarely applied to the facts of the present case. - appellant is rightly entitled for the benefit of refund under Notification 17/2011-ST dated 01/03/2011 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on delay in approval for input services used in export.

Analysis:
The appeal concerned the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) related to service tax paid on input services used in exporting output services. The rejection was primarily due to the delay in approval by the SEZ committee, which was deemed prospective. The appellant, an SEZ, had applied for approval of input services immediately after commencing operations in August 2011. The approval committee granted the approval in December 2011, after necessary verification. The appellant argued that the delay in approval should not affect their vested right to the refund claim, citing a similar case precedent where the benefit was allowed despite a delay in obtaining permission. The appellant contended that the rejection based on the timing of approval was legally unsustainable.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue argued that the approval was effective only prospectively, as the application was subject to subsequent submissions and conditions. According to the Revenue, the delay in obtaining approval was not merely procedural but impacted the entitlement to exemption from service tax. The Revenue urged to uphold the impugned order rejecting the refund claim.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, acknowledged that the input services were indeed used in exporting services and that the appellant had applied for approval well before the export transaction. The Tribunal held that the delay in approval should not negate the appellant's right to exemption from service tax on the input services. Citing a previous decision where a similar benefit was granted despite a delay in obtaining permission, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was rightfully entitled to the refund under the relevant Notification. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted any consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the delay in approval should not impact the appellant's right to claim a refund on service tax paid for input services used in exporting output services. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the timing of approval in relation to the actual use of input services for export purposes, ensuring that procedural delays do not unjustly hinder legitimate refund claims.