9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities of the refund claims of the service tax paid on various services on this ground is bad in law and is accordingly set aside. In the case of services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ, there is no necessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio. That does not mean that in a case where service tax liability has been discharged, the appellant is not eligible or not entitled for refund of the service tax paid under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r.w.s. 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is eligible for refund u/s 11B, then the same cannot be denied on the ground that the claim was made under Notification No. 09/2009-ST - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/546 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not bear a direct nexus with the authorized operations undertaken by the appellant. The second component is of ₹ 13,13,775/- which relates to service tax on services wholly consumed within the SEZ during the period from July to September, 2009. 4. The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant makes the following submissions. As regards the nexus between services rendered and the authorized operation conducted, these services have been approved by the Approval Committee and the certificate issued in this regard by the Development Commissioner in-charge of the IT/ITTES SEZ dated 22.6.2009 clearly specifies the services received by the SEZ and the justification for use of such service in relation to authorized operations. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 6,66,794/- which has been rejected on the ground that the services to which this amount pertains do not have direct nexus with the authorized operations undertaken by the appellant, this stand of the department is totally incorrect. The Approval Committee which has examined this issue has issued a specific certificate to the appellant indicating the various services received by the appellant and justification for use of such services in relation to authorized operations. The jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise is also a member of this Approval Committee. Once the Approval Committee has given the nexus and the justification, it was totally unwarranted on the part of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ, there is no necessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio . That does not mean that in a case where service tax liability has been discharged, the appellant is not eligible or not entitled for refund of the service tax paid under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is eligible for refund under Section 11B, then the same cannot be denied on the ground that the claim was made under Notification No. 09/2009-ST. In this case, there is no dispute that the services were provided in relation to the authorized operations of the appellant within the SEZ. From the records it is seen that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
