9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1193 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - rejection on the ground that the input services are not approved as per the approval list by the approval committee of SEZ - N/N. 15/2009- ST dated 20.05.2009 - HELD THAT - As per the facts of the present case the refund claim is pertaining to the period March to May, 2009 and the appellant had applied and the approval was given by the Approval Committee in September, 2009. Even though belatedly the facts remains that the input services were approved by the Approval committee. Without prejudice, it is found that this issue is no longer res- integra as in various judgments this Tribunal has expressed clear view that the approval of input services by the approval committee is only a procedural requirement and due to this procedural lapse refund cannot be rejected. The issue is no longer res-integra in as much as it was held that due to non approval of input services refund cannot be rejected under Notification No. 15/2009 ST dated 20.05.2009. Accordingly, the refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground. As per the learned AR Commissioner (Appeals) has not given finding on the time bar therefore for this purpose the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give finding on the issue of time bar. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals).
Issues Involved:
Refund claim rejection based on non-approval of input services in SEZ under Notification No. 15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was whether the appellant's refund claim could be rejected due to non-approval of input services by the SEZ approval committee. The appellant argued that the approval of input services by the committee is a procedural requirement and a delay in approval should not lead to refund rejection. Several judgments were cited to support this argument, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not hinder refund claims. 2. The appellant's counsel referred to various cases where it was established that the approval of input services by the SEZ approval committee is not a prerequisite for refund eligibility. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim in question pertained to a period before the approval was granted, but ultimately, the input services were approved. The Tribunal reiterated that the approval committee's role is procedural, and delays in approval should not impact refund claims. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant notifications and legal provisions to determine the eligibility of the appellant for a refund. It was clarified that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not under Notification No. 9/2009-ST. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim accordingly, emphasizing that the services consumed within the SEZ were exempted. 4. The Tribunal further referred to precedent cases where similar issues were addressed, highlighting that technical defects such as non-inclusion of services in approval lists should not deprive the appellant of legitimate refund benefits. The Tribunal emphasized that the SEZ Act's provisions override other laws, ensuring that SEZ units are not penalized for procedural lapses in claiming refunds. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a finding on the issue of time bar. The judgments cited in support of the appellant's case established that the rejection of refunds based on non-approval of input services in SEZ under Notification No. 15/2009-ST was not legally justified. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that procedural requirements should not impede legitimate refund claims, especially when services were utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ.
|
