9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 504 - AT - Service TaxSEZ Unit - Refund claim - N/N. 9/2009-ST and 15/2009-ST - Held that - units operating in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are not to be charged any duties of Central Excise/Customs or other taxes and wherever any such taxes/duties have been paid, they would be entitled to the refund of the same - the appellant is entitled to the subject refund claims as per relevant provisions of the applicable laws/Notifications. The decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I 2015 (11) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI referred, where it was held that From the notifications of 2009 issued by Department of Revenue, it is clear that the test of utilization of service for authorized operations is left to the wisdom of the Approval Committee and the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner regarding its actual utilization. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund claims under the SEZ Act, 2005 and relevant Service Tax Notifications. 2. Interpretation of amending Notification No.15/2009-ST. 3. Applicability of various case laws supporting SEZ units' entitlement to refunds. 4. Overriding effect of SEZ Act provisions over other laws. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Refund Claims under SEZ Act, 2005 and Relevant Service Tax Notifications: The appellant, operating in Special Economic Zones (SEZs), filed appeals against the denial of refund claims under the SEZ Act, 2005, read with Service Tax Notifications No.9/2009-ST and 15/2009-ST. The appellant argued that the SEZ Act's Sections 7, 26, and 51, along with Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, provide a broad exemption mechanism that supports their entitlement to refunds. The Tribunal acknowledged that units in SEZs are not liable for duties of Central Excise/Customs or other taxes and are entitled to refunds for any such taxes paid. 2. Interpretation of Amending Notification No.15/2009-ST: The appellant contended that Notification No.15/2009-ST does not limit the scope of exemptions provided under the SEZ Act. The Tribunal noted that the Notification No.9/2009-ST exempts taxable services provided to SEZ units from service tax, and the amending Notification No.15/2009-ST only operationalizes this exemption by delineating the refund process. The Tribunal emphasized that the SEZ Act's provisions have an overriding effect, ensuring that the exemptions remain intact despite procedural amendments. 3. Applicability of Various Case Laws Supporting SEZ Units' Entitlement to Refunds: The appellant cited several Tribunal decisions, including Intas Pharma Ltd. vs. CST, Eon Kharadi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, and Barclays Technology Centre India (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, which upheld the principle that SEZ units are entitled to refunds for service tax paid. The Tribunal reiterated that these decisions support the appellant's claims, highlighting that the procedural requirements in the Notifications are designed to facilitate exemptions rather than restrict them. 4. Overriding Effect of SEZ Act Provisions Over Other Laws: The Tribunal emphasized that Section 51 of the SEZ Act provides that the Act's provisions prevail over any inconsistent laws. This ensures that the exemptions and benefits conferred by the SEZ Act are not negated by other legislative provisions or procedural requirements. The Tribunal cited the case of Tata Consultancy Services, which affirmed that SEZ units are entitled to refunds even if procedural lapses occur, as the substantive right to exemption under the SEZ Act prevails. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the refund claims as per the relevant provisions of the SEZ Act and the supporting Notifications. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision underscores the primacy of the SEZ Act in providing tax exemptions to SEZ units and ensures that procedural amendments do not undermine these substantive rights. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in open court on 01.09.2017, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the claimed refunds.
|
