9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/27255/2013-SM - A/31004/2017 - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Ms Nanditha Biswal, C.A., for the Appellant Mr. Arun Kumar, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per: M. V. Ravindran] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.65/2013 (H-IV)ST dated 30.03.2013. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein had filed three refund claims in respect of service tax paid on various services rendered to them, claiming that they being SEZ Unit, they are not required to pay any service tax to the service providers. The said refund claims were sought to be rejected by show-cause notice dated 18.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I have also gone through the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Approval Committees for SEZ's held on 12.01.2012 at VSEZ Sub-Office, Hyderabad, wherein on Agenda Item No. 12(b) it has been clarified that Form A1 or the Approval of List of Services is effective from the relevant date of Service Tax Notification for existing units and LOA date for new units. In the instant case the assesses is an existing unit therefore the list of Approval of the Services is effective from 01.03.2011, i.e. the date of Notification 17/2011 ST dt 01.03.2011. The present refund claim pertains to the period 04/2009 to 09/2009. Therefore benefits of SEZ Notification is also not applicable for the assesses for the refund period. Since the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant and the decide the appellant's eligibility afresh. The lower authority was also directed to give adequate opportunity to appellant to furnish all records in support of their claim beside an opportunity of being heard before the matter is decide afresh. Moreover, the appellant himself accepted that the such ground as mentioned above was discussed in initial phases. In view of above, I do not find any violation of natural justice. 10. From the above, I up held the findings of the lower authority, thus the impugned order is sustainable. 4. On perusal of the show-cause notice dated 18th August 2010, the said show-cause notice sought explanation from the appellant as to why the refund claim should not be rejected only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
