2017 (7) TMI 722 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ unit - Refund claim - case of appellant is that being SEZ Unit, they are not required to pay any service tax to the service providers - scope of SCN - Held that - the lower authorities have gone beyond the allegations made in the show-cause notice and decided the matter on a different ground which was not put across to the appellant. It is settled law that adjudication proceedings cannot go beyond the allegations made in the show-cause notice and in this case despite there was second round of litigation both the lower authorities traversed beyond the allegations made in the show-cause notice - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims by show-cause notice
2. Examination of documents by Adjudicating Authority
3. Eligibility for refund claim of SEZ unit
4. Applicability of SEZ Notification
5. Violation of natural justice
6. Grounds for rejecting refund claim beyond show-cause notice
7. Set aside impugned orders and grant of appeal

1. Rejection of refund claims by show-cause notice:
The appellant filed three refund claims for service tax paid on services as an SEZ unit. The show-cause notice sought to reject the claims based on non-usage of input services for output services and issues with foreign inward remittances certificates. However, both lower authorities went beyond the notice's allegations, which is impermissible in adjudication proceedings. Citing legal precedents, it was held that orders deviating from the show-cause notice grounds are unsustainable.

2. Examination of documents by Adjudicating Authority:
The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the refund claims. The 1st Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to re-examine the documents provided by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority, in the subsequent order-in-original, reiterated the findings of the 1st Appellate Authority and emphasized the importance of the approved list of services for SEZ units.

3. Eligibility for refund claim of SEZ unit:
The appellant's eligibility for the refund claim was challenged based on the applicable Notification No. 09/2009-ST and subsequent amendments. The authorities highlighted discrepancies in the filing of the refund application under the correct notification, leading to the rejection of the claim.

4. Applicability of SEZ Notification:
The issue of SEZ Notification's applicability was crucial in determining the refund claim's validity. The authorities clarified that the benefits of the SEZ Notification were not applicable to the assesses for the specific refund period, based on the effective date of the approved list of services.

5. Violation of natural justice:
An appeal was made regarding the violation of natural justice due to the rejection of refund claims on new grounds not mentioned in the show-cause notice. The 1st Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, citing previous discussions and lack of violation of natural justice principles.

6. Grounds for rejecting refund claim beyond show-cause notice:
The lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim on grounds beyond those specified in the show-cause notice was a critical issue. The orders were deemed unsustainable due to this deviation, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and granting of the appeal.

7. Set aside impugned orders and grant of appeal:
Ultimately, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The decision was based on the impermissible expansion of grounds beyond the show-cause notice, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and legal principles in adjudication proceedings.