2017 (6) TMI 1029 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - N/N. 9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009, as amended, by N/N. 15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009 - case of Revenue is that it is for the appellant to establish that they did receive the approved services in relation to the operation by them as co-developers inside the SEZ - Held that - the terms of the agreement and other documents like invoices will indicate the nature of service received by the appellant and then, the correct classification of such taxable service can be ascertained from the same. We note that as long as it is satisfied that the appellant have discharged service tax and the services received by them are falling under overall categories of approved services, the refund claim should be considered for sanction. Adequate documentary support has been placed before us to support the claim of the appellant that they did discharge the service tax on the services received. Extended period of limitation - Held that - when the original claim was filed in time, as recorded by the Original Authority, the same should be considered for verification and sanction - extended period not invoked. The matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for examining the refund claims for sanction - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Claims for refund under notification no.9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009, as amended by notification no.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009 rejected by jurisdictional authorities.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in importation and distribution of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and setting up a re-gasification facility, filed refund claims under the exemption notification for service tax paid on services received. The claims were rejected, leading to appeals. The appellant argued that they were approved as co-developers of the SEZ project and received approved services for operations inside the SEZ. They contended that the service tax was duly paid to the contractors, supported by documentary evidence, and that the time-bar issue was rectified by an amended claim. The jurisdictional authorities, however, insisted on the appellant proving receipt of approved services related to their operation as co-developers within the SEZ.

Upon review, the tribunal found that the appellants were indeed approved as co-developers under the SEZ Act, making them eligible for the exemption. The tribunal emphasized that the nature of services received need not be explicitly mentioned in the invoice description and can be determined from the agreements and related documents. The tribunal also noted that the appellant had discharged the service tax and that the services received fell under the approved categories, warranting consideration for refund.

Regarding the allegation that the appellant did not pay service tax to the service providers, the tribunal found this to be based on misinterpretation and clarified that the appellant had paid the service tax directly. The tribunal also addressed the time limitation issue, concluding that the original claim, filed within the stipulated time, should be considered for verification, even after subsequent amendments. As a result, the tribunal set aside the original orders and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for re-examination of the refund claims, providing the appellants with an opportunity to present clarifications.

In summary, the tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case for a fresh examination of the refund claims in light of the observations made, emphasizing the appellants' eligibility for the exemption and the validity of their claims supported by documentary evidence.