9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Pharma Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad [2013 (7) TMI 703 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that Notification No. 9/2009-ST enable claim of exemption by developers or units in SEZ by way of refund of service tax paid for services used in relation to authorized operations in SEZ - insofar as the claim for refund is filed within six months or within such extended period as the AC or DC of Central Excise shall permit - provisions of the 2005 Act are provided an overriding effect vide Section 51 - the immunity to service tax in respect of taxable services provided in relation to SEZ is a legislatively enjoined immunity - any service tax paid/ remitted by a service provider is liable to be refunded to the provider who has remitted service tax in relation to taxable services provided to the unit to carry on authorized operations in a SEZ. I hold that the appellant is very much eligible for grant of refund in respect of services availed by them and consumed fully within the SEZ provided that said services are authorized by competent authority and they are not in dissonance with rule 2(l) of the CCR. In the instant case, there is no allegation that input services provided in relation to out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/41106/2016 December 2009 Total Claim ₹ 15,64,118/- S.No. Heads of Refund Claimed Refund Amount Disallowed Refund Amount Allowed Finding (1) Rent a Cab Operator Service 12,92,397/- Not essential input service for authorized operations (2) Refund claimed against credit notes 11,648/- Invoices not eligible documents under Rule 4A (3) Balance 2,60,073/- TOTAL 13,04,045/- 2,60,073/- ST/41107/2016 February, 2010 to March 2010 S.No. Heads of Refund Claimed Refund Amount Disallowed Refund Amount Allowed Finding (1) Maintenance and Repair Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces having been permitted to be availed, refund of tax paid thereon is to be allowed since exemption is undeniable except on false claims. 3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri S. Nagalingam, appearing for Revenue, reiterated the correctness of the OIA. In particular, he draws my attention to paragraphs 7 (i), 7 (ii) 7 (iv) of the impugned order to contend that exemption by way of refund would be related to a situation when taxable service provided are consumed partially or wholly outside the SEZ and will not apply in a situation where such services are fully consumed within the SEZ. 4. Heard both sides. Doubtless, the Notification No.9/2009-ST as amended by Notification No.15/2009-ST provided for abinitio exemption from discharge of service tax liability by an SEZ unit in respect of authorized services consumed fully within the SEZ. This however, in my view, cannot disentitle such a unit of refund of the service tax liability discharged even when all such services have been consumed fully within the SEZ. It is further seen that list of specified services have been issued by Development Commissioner for authorized operations by the unit within MEPZ/SEZ in which disputed services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or services consumed wholly within the SEZ. 11. On true and fair construction of Notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 issued under Section 93(1) of the Act, considered in the light of the overarching provisions of Sections 7 and 26(e) of the 2005 Act, the conclusion appears compelling that neither Notification 9/2009 nor 15/2009 disentitle immunity to Service Tax enjoined by the provisions of the 2005 Act. It therefore appears that Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 merely contour the process by which the benefit of exemption/immunity to tax is operationalised. Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 have provided a facilitative regime whereby a developer or units of SEZ, as recipients of taxable service are enabled the facility of claiming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
