2015 (9) TMI 530 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - SEZ unit - receipt of services - egal Consultancy Services were not included in the list of services approved by the developer during the relevant period when services were availed - Held that - It is observed from Clause 2 of Notification No. 9/2009-ST, dated 03.03.2009 and later claim considered under Notification No. 17/2011-ST, the exemption by way of refund is admissible if, the services are approved by the developer or unit of SEZ. It is claim of the appellant that communication of approved services, communicated to them by the developer on 02.01.2012 already stood approved during the period of September 2010 to January 2011 which included Legal Consultancy Services . However, on perusal of letter dated 02.01.2012 issued by the Assistant Development Commissioner, Dahej SEZ, it is not clear whether the list 91 services approved by the developer were existing in the approved list during the period September 2010 to January 2011 for which refund has been claim by the appellant. In the interest of Justice, as the refund relates to export of goods by the appellant, a certificate should be produced by the appellant from the developer that the approved services by the approval committee of the developer communicated to the appellant Vide Letter Dated 02.01.2011 stood approved and were applicants for the period September 2010 to January 2011. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on non-inclusion of 'Legal Consultancy Services' in approved list of services during relevant period.

The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim due to 'Legal Consultancy Services' not being included in the list of approved services during the relevant period. The appellant argued that the default list of services approved by the development Commissioner was made available to them through a communication dated 02.01.2012, which included 'Legal Consultancy Services' approved during the period of September 2010 to January 2011. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the communication letter dated 02.01.2012 did not indicate that the list of services enclosed stood approved during the relevant period.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was noted that according to Notification No. 9/2009-ST and later under Notification No. 17/2011-ST, the exemption by way of refund is permissible if the services are approved by the developer or unit of SEZ. The appellant claimed that the approved services communicated to them in 2012 were already approved during the relevant period. However, it was unclear from the letter dated 02.01.2012 whether the approved list of services existed during the period for which the refund was claimed. In the interest of justice, it was deemed necessary for the appellant to produce a certificate from the developer confirming the approval of services for the relevant period.

Consequently, the order of the first appellate authority was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The appellant was directed to provide a certificate from the developer as mentioned, and they were to be given a personal hearing to present their case before a decision was made. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for further proceedings.