9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/585/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2013 - MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN, J. For the Appellant: Shri Dhaval K. Shah, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K.N. Joshi, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.148/2011 (STC)/K.ANPAZHAKAN/COMMR(A)/ AHD, dt.29.06.2011. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are having letter of approval No.KASEZ/P C/6/06/06-07/10839 dated 02.01.2007 of the Jt.D.C., KASEZ, Ministry of Commerce, Gandhidham, duly extended upto 31.12.2011 vide KASEZ's letter dated 21.01.2011 and they had filed ST-1 on 12.06.2009 and got Service Tax registration from Service Tax department on 25.08.09 having regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab services and Management, Maintenance and Repair services on the ground that they are used in relation to the authorized activity of SEZ. 4. Ld.Counsel would draw my attention to the list of services which were agreed upon and which are required for the functioning of the appellant s SEZ. He would draw my attention to the Sr.No.12 and 13 of the said list and submit that both the services on which Service Tax was paid and refund was claimed are notified as required for authorized activity. It is his submission that both the lower authorities have erred in rejecting the refund claim. He would draw my attention to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd 2012-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-MUM. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds the refund claim of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
